Study #8 - baptism, works, and grace?

What can I do to be saved? Place to discuss sin and its remedy.

Moderator: grand_puba

Post Reply
User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Study #8 - baptism, works, and grace?

Post by email » Wed May 11, 2005 1:34 am

Students In Search of Truth Online Correspondence Study #8 - The Role of Baptism in Salvation
Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted on Tuesday, May 10, 2005 at 12:08:58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
What does "salvation" mean to you?: It means that I know when I die that I will be in
heaven with God.
What is our condition before God? (Romans 3:23; I John 1:8): YES
Through whom does man receive salvation? (Ephesians 1:7; Acts 4:12): Jesus Christ
To whom is the gospel invitation open? (Romans 1:16; Matthew 28:19): Everyone
What were the apostles commanded to do? (Matthew 28:19): Make disciples.
After being taught the gospel of Jesus, what did people do? (Acts 8:38; Acts 16:33): After they were saved they were baptised as a testimony of their faith.
After believing, when were these people baptized? (Acts 8:38; Acts 16:33): After they were saved.
In what manner was the Eunuch baptized? (Acts 8:38): By imersion
What did Jesus do immediately after being baptized? (Matthew 3:16): Go intp the wilderness.
Why were they baptizing in the city of Aenon? (John 3:23): As a testimony of their faith in Christ and because there was much water.
If "much water" was required, and those baptized went down into and came up out of the water, then were people immersed or sprinkled in th New Testament?: Immersion
What other types of water baptism, if any, are referenced in the Bible? (Acts 1:4-5) : There is water here in these verses it is Spirit baptism.1 Cor. 12:13
Is belief in Christ all that God commands to be saved? (James 2:19): YES
What must accompany one's faith? (James 2:20): Yes Eph 2:8-9,
What specific work does Jesus say must accompany belief in order to be saved? (Mark 16:16): If baptism is needed for salvation how come the Bible does not say that one is not saved because he is not baptised. The only thing the Bible say about a person that is not saved is that they have not believed. Baptism is never mentioned.John 3:16-19
What was Peter's answer to being asked "What shall we do"? (Acts 2:38): Baptism does not save, nor is it essential for salvation. Otherwise, why would Paul say in 1 Cor 1 that he was called to preach the gospel and not to baptize? Paul makes a distinction between the two, implying that one is just a picture of the other. At bottom, if we add to the work of Christ, then we take away from the sufficiency of the cross.
Below is the discussion of Acts 2:38 in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Exegetical Syntax:
1. Causal Ei" in Acts 2:38? An interesting discussion over the force of ei" took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Pevtro" deV pro" aujtouV" metanohvsate, fhsivn, kaiV baptisqhvtw e{kasto" uJmw'n ejpiV tw'/ ojnovmati jIhsou' Cristou' ei" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n ( And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized each one of you at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins ).
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that ei" could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eij was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey s nonbiblical examples of a causal eij" so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation): It is quite possible that eiv" is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eij" cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non- linguistic. Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eij" fell short of proof.
If a causal eij" is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38. 1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).
2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of baptism in Acts especially in this text (cf. 2:41).
3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins If this is the correct understanding, then eij" is subordinate to metanohvsate alone, rather than to baptisqhvtw. The idea then would be, Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized. Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.
4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
In sum, although Mantey s instincts were surely correct that in Luke s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eiv" lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking Why? has no more basis than the notion that eij" ever meant mere representation (see prior discussion).


Using the verse to answer, why did Peter command them to be baptized? (Acts 2:38): They were baptised after they repented and recieved the Holy Spirit. Baptism here was done as a testimony of their faith in Christ.
What two things happen at the time of baptism? (Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 2:41,47):
Are we commanded by God be baptized to be saved?: NO
Comments:
Our message is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ, the message of salvation through His person and work. That sounds simple enough, but it is not nearly as simple as it sounds. The simple message, believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved, has been assaulted from early on. Since the message is crucial to salvation, since anathema is pronounced on those who misrepresent it or change it (Gal. 1:6-9), we need to know the message. If we are to be true to the Bible and to the grace of our Lord, we need to be able to share the gospel clearly and avoid the distortions.
Outside the doctrines related to the Person and work of Christ, there is no truth more far-reaching in its implications and no fact more to be defended than that salvation in all its limitless magnitude is secured, so far as human responsibility is concerned, by believing on Christ as Savior. To this one requirement no other obligation may be added without violence to the Scriptures and total disruption of the essential doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Only ignorance or reprehensible inattention to the structure of a right Soteriology will attempt to intrude some form of human works with its supposed merit into that which, if done at all, must, by the very nature of the case, be wrought by God alone and on the principle of sovereign grace.1 (Emphasis mine)
>From the early days of the church, the church has faced the problem of those who wanted to add to the message. In Acts 15:1 we read these words: Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved. Verse 5 tells us that these were men from the sect of the Pharisees who had believed. They were members of the church and so, from within its own ranks, a controversy broke out concerning the exact nature and content of the message of the gospel.
The gospel by nature is a God-centered, grace-centered message which offers salvation as a free gift, a gift without cost, through faith in God s work through His Son rather than by man s work or works whether religious or moral (1 Cor. 1:30; John 4:10; Acts 8:20; Rom. 11:6; 15:15-18; Rev. 21:6). The nature of the message, the condition of man (dead in sin and born spiritually blind [Eph. 2:1; 1 Cor. 2:14; John 9:39]), and the activity of Satan (2 Cor. 4:4; John 8:43-45) make this a difficult message to accept. Man naturally thinks he must add something to his salvation for it to be bonafide.
As a result, certain accusations are often leveled against faith alone in Christ alone: it is sometimes called cheap grace or easy believism. But this is nonsense. The claim of easy believism so often aimed at those who preach faith alone in Christ alone is a misnomer. Simple faith is not easy for mankind who wants to add something to the work of God. Furthermore, salvation in Christ is free, but its not cheap. It cost God the death of His Son, the Lord Jesus.
This study will be devoted to some of the more common ways the gospel is being assaulted or perverted, very often, by well-meaning and sincere people. This is no new problem. As mentioned above, it was a problem in the early church starting in Acts 15 and it has been a problem throughout the history of the church. When I was in Seminary in the mid-sixties, one of my professors, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, taught a brief series on this in the church where my wife and I were attending in Dallas, Texas. It was an issue then, it is still a serious issue today, and it will continue to be an issue until the Lord returns.
While the debate over the issue of faith alone in Christ alone is not new, it has recently been brought to the forefront by the writings and preaching of John MacArthur, especially by his book entitled The Gospel According to Jesus in which he attacked the writings of: Dr. Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary; Dr. Charles Ryrie, author of The Ryrie Study Bible and a number of other books including Basic Theology and the book, So Great Salvation, which was written as an answer to MacArthur s book setting forth a clear presentation of the free salvation position; and Zane Hodges, former professor at Dallas, who is a strong proponent of the free grace salvation position and author of Absolutely Free and The Gospel Under Siege. Other well-known proponents of the lordship Salvation position are Dr. J. I. Packer, well known for his books, Knowing God, and Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, and Dr. James Boice, author of Foundations of the Christian Faith.
While MacArthur s books and preaching have created a furor of controversy with a number of debates resulting, it has had a good result in that it has caused the church to more clearly study and define issues and passages that are fuzzy to many people, and to defend the faith against these errors of evangelism or common assaults on the pure gospel of God s grace which is faith alone in Christ alone.
Assault 1:
Believe and Repent of Your Sins
In this assault, repentance is conceived as a separate act and is consistently added to believing as a human requirement for salvation. In other words, rather than seeing repentance as a synonym for believing, one is saved by repenting (which in this view means a turning from sin) and by believing (putting one s trust in Christ).
Few issues are of more vital interest to whose who believe in heaven and hell than the question of what man must do to gain entrance into heaven. Answers to this question nearly always include a reference to repentance. Throughout church history nearly every theologian has taught that repentance is essential for salvation from hell. However, several disparate understandings of repentance have been advocated.2
The Word Repent in English Translations
· In the NASB, some form of the word (repent, repentant, repented, repentance, etc.) is found 73 times with 56 of these occurring in the New Testament.
· In the ASB, some form of the word occurs 103 times with 61 in the New Testament.
· In the KJV, some form of the word occurs 112 times with 66 in the New Testament.
· In the NIV, some form of the word occurs 74 times with 55 in the New Testament.
· In the New KJV, some form of the word occurs 72 times with 58 in the New Testament.
· In the RSV, some form of the word occurs 99 times with 59 in the New Testament.
· In the New RSV, some form of the word occurs 72 times with 57 in the New Testament.
Clearly, repentance is a prominent concept of Scripture, but it is obvious from the difference in the above numbers that the words of the original are not always translated in the same way by the translators of the different versions because some of the translators didn t believe our English word repent always conveyed the right idea. Why? Because of the misconceptions about this word. In fact, because of our preconditioned ideas about this word, very often repent, is not the best translation at all.
Important Questions
The issue facing us is what exactly does it mean to repent? And related to this are other important questions and issues. What are we to repent of and for? Does it mean to feel sorry for something? Does it mean to feel sorrow for sin? Does it convey a resolve to turn from sin? Ryrie writes:
Since many consider sorrow for sin and repentance to be equivalent, the question could be worded, What is the place of repentance in relation to salvation? Must repentance precede faith? Is it a part of faith or a synonym for it? Can one be saved without repenting?3
Basic or Generic Meanings
Many, if not most, terms have basic or generic meanings that must be understood within their context. In other words, the context is vital to a proper understanding of most words. Within the context most terms make immediate sense. Without the context you either misunderstand what is meant or you are left wondering. Two common English words we use regularly will illustrate the point. If we say someone opened the trunk, we could mean the trunk of a car, an elephant s trunk, the trunk of a man s body, a tree trunk, or something you store things in. Or if we say, someone walked on the bed, it could mean the flower bed, a bed of leaves, the bed we sleep in. The ingredient needed to make the meaning of the word clear is the CONTEXT. The following are two scriptural illustrations:
Salvation
The Word salvation is the Greek, soteria and soterion. The basic, unaffected meaning of the word salvation is to rescue or to save, deliver. But we must ask a further question about this basic meaning if we are to understand its meaning in a particular context: To be rescued from what? In Philippians 1:19 Paul uses the word salvation, soteria, to mean rescue from his confinement in Rome. Except for the KJV, most versions translate this word deliverance. In that text salvation does not mean rescue from eternal damnation but deliverance from his present confinement in Rome. But, of course, in other contexts salvation does refer to being rescued from eternal condemnation [Acts 4:12] (Ryrie, p. 92).
Compare also Luke 1:71 referring to deliverance from Gentile domination, Acts 7:25 referring to rescue from Egypt, but Acts 13:47 by the context refers to salvation from sin and the gift of eternal life.
Redeem
Concerning the word Redeem, Ryrie writes:
What does it mean to redeem? It means to buy or purchase something. To purchase what, one must ask, in order to tailor this generic meaning to its use in a particular passage? In Matthew 13:44 a man redeems a field; that is, he buys it. This use has no relation to the redemption our Lord made on the cross, though the same word is used of the payment He made for sin when He died (2 Pet. 2:1). The basic meaning remains the same--to purchase--whether the word refers to paying the price for a field or for sin.4
Compare also Matthew 14:15 (buying food); 21:12 (buying in the temple); 1 Corinthians 6:20; 7:23, (Christ s purchasing our redemption or salvation on the cross).
The basic meanings of these words remain the same, to save whether from a physical disaster or from eternal judgment, or to purchase whether to pay a price for a field, buy something in the market, or to pay the price for our sin. It s the context, however, which makes the difference as to the exact meaning.
Obviously, the same principle must be applied to the word repentance. The first question is, what is the basic meaning for the word repentance as it is used in the New Testament? For many people, repentance carries with it two ideas: (a) sorrow for sin, and, based on that, (b) turning from sin and going in a different direction.
These two ideas, sorrow for sin and turning from sin, are then added to believing in Christ, or it is explained that this is what faith in Christ means. In other words, you must feel sorry for your sins, turn from your sins, and trust in Christ for salvation. Then, added to all this is often a fourth--there must be a willingness to continue to turn from sin or you cannot be saved or you are not really saved.
The Meaning of
Repentance in the New Testament
The Greek Words in Question
Since our English word is a translation of the Greek of the New Testament, we need to look at the original language. There are two New Testament Greek words which are translated repentance in the modern English translations: metanoia (and its verbal counterpart metanoeo) and metamelomai. The former term is so translated fifty-eight times in the New Testament; the latter only six times.5 This study will be concerned primarily with metanoia.
Metamelomai means to regret, change the mind and may connote the idea of sorrow, but not necessarily. It is translated by regret, change the mind, and feel remorse in the NASB and NIV, and in all but one of the passages where it is used, the primary idea is a change of mind (cf. Matt. 21:29, 32; 27:3; 2 Cor. 7:8; Heb. 7:21).
Metanoia, the primary word, without question, means a change of mind. It refers to the thinking of people who thought one thing or made one decision and then, based on further evidence or input, changed their minds. So, the basic sense is a change of mind. This is its meaning and use outside the New Testament and in the New Testament. It is a change of mind that leads to a different course of action, but that course of action must be determined by the context. In a context that deals with forgiveness of sin or receiving eternal life as a gift from God, the course of action is a change of trust because one now sees Jesus as the only means of salvation from sin.
Ryrie writes:
Sorrow may well be involved in a repentance, but the biblical meaning of repentance is to change one s mind, not to be sorry. And yet that change of mind must not be superficial, but genuine. The presence or absence of sorrow does not necessarily prove or disprove the genuineness of the repentance.6
That sorrow does not necessarily prove or disprove the genuineness of repentance is clear from 2 Corinthians 7:9-10. Sorrow may lead to a genuine change of mind, or as in the case of Judas, it may not. The point being that sorrow and repentance are not same thing.
But again, the nature of the change and what is changed must be determined by the context. So, another question must be asked. About what do we change our mind? Answering that question will focus the basic meaning on the particular change and issue involved.
The Object of Repentance
Many today make repentance and faith two distinct and necessary requirements for salvation. In his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer writes:
The demand is for repentance as well as faith. It is not enough to believe that only through Christ and His death are sinners justified and accepted. Knowledge of the gospel, and orthodox belief of it, is no substitute for repentance. Where there is no realistic recognition of the real claims that Christ makes, there can be no repentance, and therefore no salvation.7
Is this what the Bible really teaches? Believe and repent are never used together as if teaching two different requirements for salvation. When salvation from eternal condemnation is in view, repent (a change of mind) and believe are in essence used as synonyms. Lewis Chafer wrote:
Too often, when it is asserted--as it is here--that repentance is not to be added to belief as a separated requirement for salvation, it is assumed that repentance is not necessary to salvation. Therefore it is as dogmatically stated as language can declare, that repentance is essential to salvation and that none could be saved apart from repentance, but it is included in believing and cannot be separated from it.8
Roy B. Zuck writes:
Repentance is included in believing. Faith and repentance are like two sides of a coin. Genuine faith includes repentance, and genuine repentance includes faith. The Greek word for repentance (metanoia) means to change one s mind. But to change one s mind about what? About sin, about one s adequacy to save himself, about Christ as the only way of salvation, the only One who can make a person righteous.9
In Luke s rendering of the Great Commission he uses repentance as a single requirement in the same sense as believing in Christ (Luke 24:46-47). As Dr. Ryrie says of this verse, Clearly, repentance for the forgiveness of sins is connected to the death and resurrection of Christ (p. 97). The repentance comes out of the recognition of one s sin, but the object of repentance is the person and work of Christ, or faith in Christ. Interestingly, in Luke 8:12 he uses believe alone, Those along the path are the ones who hear, and then the devil comes and takes away the word from their hearts, so that they may not believe and be saved.
A comparison of other passages clearly supports the fact that repentance often stands for faith in the person and work of Christ. Compare Acts 10:43 with 11:17-18; 13:38-39 with 2:38. Also, note Acts 16:31 which uses believe alone.
The stated purpose of the Gospel of John is to bring men to faith in Christ (20:31), yet John never once uses the word repent, not once. If repentance, when used in connection with eternal salvation, is a separate or distinct requirement from faith in Christ, then John does not give the whole gospel. And if you can believe that, you can believe anything. Speaking of the absence of John s use of repent in His gospel, Ryrie writes:
And yet John surely had many opportunities to use it in the events of our Lord s life which he recorded. It would have been most appropriate to use repent or repentance in the account of the Lord s conversation with Nicodemus. But believe is the word used (John 3:12, 15). So, If Nicodemus needed to repent, believe must be a synonym; else how could the Lord have failed to use the word repent when talking to him? To the Samaritan harlot, Christ did not say repent. He told her to ask (John 4:10), and when her testimony and the Lord s spread to other Samaritans, John recorded not that they repented but that they believed (vss. 39, 41-42). There are about fifty more occurrences of believe or faith in the Gospel of John, but not one use of repent. The climax is John 20:31: These have been written that you may believe and that believing you may have life in His name. 10
What about Acts 20:21? solemnly testifying to both Jews and Greeks of repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Some would say, Doesn t this passage teach that faith and repentance are not synonymous and that repentance is a separate requirement? NO! Paul is summarizing his ministry in Ephesus and what he solemnly proclaimed to both Jews and Greeks, specifically, repentance toward God and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. The two words, repentance and faith, are joined by one article in the Greek text which indicates that the two are inseparable, though each focuses on a different aspect of the one requirement of salvation, namely, faith in Christ.
We can legitimately translate it like this. Solemnly testifying a change of mind about God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Repentance, metanoia, focuses on changing one s mind about his previous conception of God and disbelief in God or false beliefs (polytheism and idolatry) about God (see 1 Thess. 1:9). On the other hand, belief in Christ, as an expression of a change of mind, focuses on the new direction that change about God must take, namely, trusting in Christ, God s Son, as personal Savior.
It has also been suggested that in this summary Paul is emphasizing the distinction between the particular needs of Gentiles and Jews. Gentiles who were polytheistic needed to change their minds about their polytheism and realize that only one true God exists. Jews needed to change their minds about Jesus and realize that He is their true Messiah (Ryrie, p. 98).
Uses of the Concept
of Repentance in the New Testament
A Synonym for Eternal Salvation
Metanoia is sometimes used through a metonymy as a synonym for eternal salvation. A metonymy is a figure of speech by which one name or noun is used instead of another to which it stands in a certain relation. These involve a metonymy of cause for the effect. The CAUSE is a change of mind about Christ and His gospel. The EFFECT is eternal salvation (compare 2 Pet. 3:9, 1 Tim. 2:4, Luke 5:32).11
A Non-Saving Repentance (metamelomai)
Under this category we might also include repentance in the sense of remorse, regret with the use of metamelomai. This aspect of non-saving repentance is a repentance or change of mind that does not lead to eternal life or the spiritual blessings sought. Two examples are Judas (Matt. 27:3) and Esau (Heb. 12:17). Compare also Matt. 21:28-32.
A Salvation Repentance
Salvation repentance is a change of mind that results in eternal salvation. This involves a change of mind about self, about one s sinful condition and inability to save oneself combined with a change of mind about Christ, that He is the Messiah Savior and the only one by whom man can find salvation (Acts 2:38; 17:29-31). Salvation repentance means a change in confidence; it means turning away from self-confidence to confidence in Christ, faith alone in Christ alone. The irony of all of this is that any other viewpoint is really not biblical repentance because it virtually borders on faith in oneself. In this use metanoia occurs as a virtual synonym for pistis (faith). 12
A Christian Experience Repentance
This is a change of mind regarding sinful behavior. An illustration of this kind of repentance is found in 2 Corinthians 7:8-11; 12:21; Revelation 2:5, 16, 21; 3:3, 19. By Paul s use of lupeo (to distress, grieve) and metamelomai, 2 Corinthians 7:8-11 he clearly illustrates that metanoia does not mean to feel regret, but involves a change of mind.
For though I caused you sorrow (lupeo) by my letter, I do not regret (metalomai) it; though I did regret (metalomai) it--for I see that that letter caused you sorrow, though only for a while--I now rejoice, not that you were made sorrowful (lupeo), but that you were made sorrowful (lupeo) to the point of repentance (metanoia); for you were made sorrowful (lupeo) according to the will of God, in order that you might not suffer loss in anything through us. For the sorrow (lupe) that is according to the will of God produces a repentance (metanoia) without regret (metamelomai), leading to salvation; but the sorrow (lupe) of the world produces death. For behold what earnestness this very thing, this godly sorrow (lupeo), has produced in you: what vindication of yourselves, what indignation, what fear, what longing, what zeal, what avenging of wrong! In everything you demonstrated yourselves to be innocent in the matter (2 Cor. 7:8-11).
Wilkin writes:
On some occasions metanoia is used in contexts where the change of mind in view is clearly indicated as having to do with one s sinful practices. For example, in Luke 17:3-4 Jesus taught the disciples that they were to forgive all who sinned against them if they came and indicated that they had changed their minds regarding their sin. In this case and others like it repentance would be a good translation choice.13
Conclusion
Ryrie writes:
To return to the main point of this chapter: Is repentance a condition for receiving eternal life? Yes, if it is repentance or changing one s mind about Jesus Christ. No, if it means to be sorry for sin or even to resolve to turn from sin, for these things will not save.. Is repentance a precondition to faith? No, though a sense of sin and the desire to turn from it may be used by the Spirit to direct someone to the Savior and His salvation. Repentance may prepare the way for faith, but it is faith that saves, not repentance (unless repentance is understood as a synonym for faith or changing one s mind about Christ).14
In the third of a series of excellent articles on the meaning of repentance, Wilkin writes:
I wish we could retranslate the New Testament. It would make teaching and preaching passages using metanoia simpler. It would eliminate the confusion many have when they read their Bibles and see the word repent
In most cases when the English word repent occurs in the New Testament it is translating metanoia. Metanoia is not the equivalent of the Old Testament term shub. It certainly does not mean penance. Nor does it normally mean repentance. Rather, in the New Testament it retains its pre-Christian meaning of a change of mind. The English reader thus generally needs to read change of mind not turn from sins when he sees the word repent in the New Testament. The context must be consulted to determine the object of a person s change of mind.
The only times repent is actually a good English translation is when the object of metanoia is sinful deeds. A change of mind about sinful behavior is equivalent to repentance.15
Assault 2:
Believe Plus Make Christ Lord
Similar assaults would also include faith plus commitment and faith plus surrender to God.
The late H. A. Ironside tells the story of a lady missionary who, over a period of time, led a little Irish boy to the Savior.
Brought up a Romanist, he thought and spoke of penance and confessional, of sacraments and church, yet never wholly leaving out Christ Jesus and His atoning work.
One morning when the lady called again upon him, she found his face aglow with a new-found joy. Inquiring the reason, he replied with assurance born of faith in the revealed Word of God, I always knew that Jesus was necessary, but I never knew till yesterday that He was enough!
It was a blessed discovery, and I would that every reader of these pages had made it. Mark it well; Jesus is enough! He, of God, is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification and redemption. Ye are complete in Him. God hath made us accepted in the beloved. These are only a few of the precious declarations of Scripture which show clearly that Jesus is indeed not only necessary, but enough.
You see, it is not Christ and good works, nor Christ and the church, that save. It is not through Christ and baptism, or Christ and the confessional, that we may obtain the forgiveness of our sins. It is not Christ and doing our best, or Christ and the Lord s Supper, that will give us new life. It is Christ alone.
Christ and is a perverted gospel which is not the Gospel. Christ without the and is the sinner s hope and the saint s confidence. Trusting Him, eternal life and forgiveness are yours. Then, and not till then, good works and obedience to all that is written in the Word for the guidance of Christians, fall into place. The saved soul is exhorted to maintain good works, and thus to manifest his love for Christ. But for salvation itself, Jesus is not only necessary, but He is enough.16
The Apostle Paul told Titus, And let our people also learn to engage in good deeds to meet pressing needs, that they may not be unfruitful (Tit. 3:14). Peter likewise challenged his readers to produce good works (cf. 2 Pet. 1:8-11). So it is entirely possible, indeed, if Christians do not diligently draw on their resources in the Lord, they will become unfruitful. Furthermore, the fact that the exhortation of Romans 12:1 occurs in the twelfth chapter and not in the third chapter of Romans clearly shows one can be a believer and still fail to be committed to the lordship of Christ. It shows commitment to the lordship of Christ is not a part of what is needed to be saved. If it is, then it seems the Apostle had a lapse of memory and left it out. The facts are, however, no one is ever totally committed to the lordship of Christ. There is always room for improvement.
But some say that in order to be saved, I must not only believe; I must also surrender to Christ s lordship or I cannot be saved or I haven t had a real work of grace in my life. Advocates of the lordship salvation position believe that a person must surrender every area of his or her life to Christ s absolute control in order to be saved. It is believed that one cannot receive Christ as Savior from sin without also receiving Him as Lord of one s entire life. Why is this view promoted? Very often, it is promoted because of concern over so many people who claim to be Christians, but give very little evidence through a changed life. I share their concern, as should every Christian, but the solution is not adding to the gospel message as an incentive to Christ-like living, but the communication of other Christian truth like the sanctification truths and the consequences of sin in the believer s life.
Concerning the belief that we should add surrender to the gospel message, we need to ask an important question. Since no one is ever 100 % committed, how much commitment or surrender is enough to be saved? Is it 5%, 10%, 20%? Is it okay to be a little bit committed, but not a lot? Is that the idea? Doesn t all sin fall short of the glory of God? Isn t that why Christ had to die for our sins in the first place?
Some proponents of the lordship position will answer, you must be willing to submit even though no one is ever totally committed. Again we need to ask, how willing? Do you see what we get into when we think like this? The Scripture just does not teach such an idea! Yes, it calls upon the child of God to commit his or her life to Christ as Lord, but not as a means of receiving eternal life. The Bible teaches that salvation comes by faith alone through Christ alone. Of this subtle tendency, Chafer/Walvoord write:
In presenting the Gospel it is a subtle temptation to urge people not only to believe but also to surrender to God because of course this is the ultimate objective of their salvation. However, in explaining the terms of salvation this brings in a confusing human work as essential to salvation which the Bible does not confirm.17
The Lordship Salvation View
While there are variations within the lordship camp, all the lordship salvation proponents seem to believe in three things:
(1) The condition of eternal life is more than trusting in Christ
One or more of the following are also conditions of eternal life: turning from sins, being willing to turn from sins, total surrender or committing one s life to Christ, obedience, and persevering in the faith. Some include baptism in their list of conditions.
(2) The condition of perseverance
Another idea that is promoted is if you do not persevere, then either you were not really saved, or your faith was only intellectual, or you lost your salvation.
Undoubtedly because of the strong emphasis in Scripture on faith or believing in Christ for salvation (about 150 passages in all), proponents of the lordship persuasion find themselves in a quandary. They will often redefine saving faith as consisting of several aspects which include some form of works as evidence of real faith. This forces them into a very contradictory position. Note the contradictory elements in the Doctrinal Statement of a church that teaches lordship salvation. The statement about faith is prefaced with the following:
Although there are several aspects that saving faith involves, the Scriptures clearly teach that it is not a work, but is itself solidly based on God s grace.
But then faith is defined in such a way that it includes works. According to the Doctrinal Statement saving faith includes:
· Knowledge of the Facts--Faith must be based on the content of the Word of God.
· Assent to this Knowledge--A person must agree that the facts of Scripture are true.
· Repentance--There must be a turning from sin and turning towards God.
· Submission to Christ--There must be a subjection to the person and will of Christ with a desire and willingness to obey.
While new life should result in change or good works, works in the Christian life like turning from sin are a product of fellowship with the Savior or the Spirit-filled, Word-filled life. They are the result of abiding in the vine. Initial faith joins a person into the vine, but it is abiding that produces the fruit. This is why Jesus challenged His disciples to abide. Without it, we become unfruitful.
(3) The promises of the Word are not sufficient for assurance
For assurance of salvation, one holding to this position must also look to his works. They say believers cannot have 100% assurance of salvation merely by looking to the promises of the Word. In fact, many if not most in this doctrinal camp say that 100% assurance is impossible since no one s works are perfect and no one knows if he will persevere.
Mike Cocoris, a former Dallas Seminary classmate of mine, writes of a conversation he had with a lordship proponent:
Recently a Lordship Salvationist and I engaged in a lengthy discussion concerning the question, What must I do to be saved? At one point I asked him, If I led someone to Christ tonight, could that person go home, lay his head down on his pillow, and know for sure that he was going to heaven? The man with whom I was talking replied emphatically, No! 18
But this is contrary to the clear statement of 1 John 5:11-13.
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have life. I write these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God so that you may know that you have eternal life. (emphasis mine).
Care is taken to give lesser weight to John s gospel than to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and the New Testament epistles in formulating the gospel or the doctrine of salvation. This is very strange since the synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark, and Luke, deal primarily with discipleship, and since John specifically tells us the purpose of his gospel is that people may believe in Jesus Christ that they may have eternal life (John 20:31).
The Free Grace Salvation View
The sole condition for eternal life is personal faith in Jesus Christ alone as one s Savior. Christ is enough! This means faith in the person and finished work of Christ as the God-man who died for our sins is the sole basis of one s salvation. None of the faith plus someone s add-ons are conditions for eternal life. It is nonsense to speak of a free gift which costs us something or gives us something to do to get salvation (Rom. 4:1-6; 11:6).
The promises of the Word of God, based on the finished work of Christ, are sufficient for assurance of salvation (cf. John 6:37-40). While one s works can have confirmatory value and demonstrate the condition of our walk with the Lord, they are not essential for assurance. Any believer can have 100% certainty of his salvation if he will look to the promises of the Word like 1 John 5:11-13.
The Gospel of John is given a great deal of weight in formulating one s view of the gospel and how one is saved. Why is this? Three major reasons: (a) Because of John s explicit statement about the purpose of his gospel (20:31), (b) because of his repeated use of believe (found some 98 times), and (c) because of the absence of any other condition. Not all of the uses of believe in John have reference to believing unto eternal life, but a large number do.
Finally, because salvation is by grace alone through the finished work of Christ (Rom. 4:1-5; 5:19; 11:6), free grace salvationists believe salvation or eternal life can never be lost (Rom. 8:32-39; John 6:37-40; 10:28-29).
Arguments Against the Lordship Position
A subtle form of legalism
This position is a subtle form of legalism and a direct attack on the free gift emphasis of the gospel message so prominent in the New Testament. Proponents end up diluting the concept of salvation as a free gift.
In his book, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God, J. I. Packer writes, It is not enough to believe that only through Christ and his death are sinners justified and accepted, In common honesty, we must not conceal the fact that free forgiveness in one sense will cost everything. I have a great respect for this man, but this is a flat contradiction. Just compare Paul s argument in Romans 4:4-5 and 11:6.
Writing with regard to Packer s statement, Bob Wilkin writes:
Frankly I find this view of the gospel appalling. It is gibberish to speak of a free gift which costs us everything. It is absurd to suggest that we should show an unbeliever all of the things which believers are commanded to do and not to do in Scripture and then have them promise to do the former and not to do the latter from now on faithfully. Such a gospel is not a free gift. It is an earned wage. Romans 4:1ff. and approximately 150 other passages which condition eternal salvation upon faith alone in Christ alone contradict such a view.19
Salvation by Works
Ultimately, the lordship position leaves people trusting in their own record or performance and merit and not that of Christ. In the final analysis, under such a view, people are saved by their works, but the New Testament emphatically states that men are not saved by works (Eph. 2:8-9; Tit. 3:5).
Roy Zuck has a good illustration on this point:
If I offer my wife a gift and then tell her it will cost her something to get it, it is no longer a gift. Salvation is a gift from God. But if someone says a person must commit, surrender, obey, forsake all, or deny self in order to receive that gift and be saved, that implies that salvation is not a gift after all.20
Passages used to support lordship salvation can and should be explained in connection with discipleship or rewards in the kingdom--in these passages, it s not entrance that is in view, but inheritance or rewards (2 Pet. 1:10-11).
Salvation versus Sanctification
In other words, salvation is confused with sanctification or conversion with consecration. As Zuck writes:
The lordship view does not clarify the distinction between sanctification and justification, or between discipleship and sonship. It mixes the condition with the consequences. it confuses becoming a Christian with being a Christian.21
These passages deal with the consequences of sin on fellowship, physical health, inheritance in the kingdom or rewards or their loss, but not on entrance into the kingdom of God.
An Illustration is Luke 14:16-33. First, when those invited to the banquet find excuses not to come (a reference to unbelieving Israel), the servants are told to go out into the highways and hedges and compel people to come the banquet. The banquet is a picture of the kingdom (vss. 16-24). In other words, there are no requirements. Entrance is free. However, in the next section, verses 25f, the Lord shows that in order to be His disciple, one must be willing to count the cost. This is not a call for salvation, but a declaration of what is involved in being His disciple. Furthermore, the emphasis is not so much that Christ would not let such a person be His disciple, but that such a person who had not counted the cost would not be able to be His disciple: when it came time to make those tough decisions, they would not be willing and able to do so because they had not dealt with their values and eternal priorities.
No Room for Carnality
The lordship position rules out the concept of carnal Christians (1 Cor. 3:3).
The lordship position leaves no room for spiritual regression in a believer s life or it is minimized. The fact is the Bible is full of examples where believers fell into sin and in some cases stayed in that condition for some time. David is a classic example. Lot, who is called a righteous man (2 Pet. 2:7), was actually one whom I would not want to use as an example to follow.
With the lordship salvation view, there is ultimately no room for the carnal Christian; only Christians who act in a carnal way. This is precisely the statement of John MacArthur in his book, The Gospel According to Jesus, p. 97, footnote 2). Concerning 1 Corinthians 3:3f and MacArthur s view, Ryrie writes,
Notice that Paul does not merely say that Christians can and do behave in carnal ways (quoting MacArthur); he plainly states, You are carnal. How then can one charge that contemporary theologians have fabricated an entire category for this type of person-- the carnal Christian (again quoting MacArthur). Obviously, such a designation for some Christians is not a fabrication; it is a scriptural teaching.22
Clearly then, the text of 1 Corinthians 3:3 and the condition of the Corinthians as they are described in the book of 1 Corinthians shows the contrary. MacArthur is begging the question.
Misunderstands Salvation Passages
The lordship position misunderstands salvation passages which use Lord as a call to surrender one s life to Christ s lordship (Rom. 10:9).
In relation to Christ s lordship, there are two aspects. There is first of all the objective. This recognizes the fact that Christ is God, the sovereign Lord of the universe. Then, there is the subjective which involves personal surrender of one s life or commitment.
Does Romans 10:9 call for the objective fact or the subjective commitment or both? Concerning this question, Everett Harrison writes:
Jesus is Lord was the earliest declaration of faith fashioned by the church (Acts 2:36; 1 Cor. 12:3). This great truth was recognized first by God in raising his Son from the dead--an act then acknowledged by the church and one day to be acknowledged by all (Phil. 2:11) Paul s statement in vv. 9, 10 is misunderstood when it is made to support the claim that one cannot be saved unless he makes Jesus the Lord of his life by a personal commitment. Such a commitment is most important; however, in this passage, Paul is speaking of the objective lordship of Christ, which is the very cornerstone of faith, something without which no one could be saved. Intimately connected as it was with the resurrection, which in turn validated the saving death, it proclaimed something that was true no matter whether or not a single soul believed it and built his life on it.23
Roman s 10:9 is calling for the need to confess that Jesus is God. In this context Paul quotes the Old Testament a number of times and is dealing with Jewish unbelief, not lordship issues. Lord (the Greek kurios) certainly is used as the equivalent of Yahweh in the Old Testament. It is calling for the acknowledgment that Jesus is the I Am of the Old Testament and therefore God.
That Paul refers to confessing that Jesus is Lord is also supported grammatically.
The passage should not be translated as does the NASB, Jesus as Lord, or as the KJV, the Lord Jesus, but as the NIV, Jesus is Lord. This involves a fine point of Greek grammar involving the use of what grammarians call the double accusative of object-complement where one accusative is the direct object of a verb of calling, designating, or confessing, and the second accusative is the complement that makes an assertion about the direct object. Some grammarians would call the second accusative a predicate accusative (cf. Robertson, Short Grammar, p. 219). Generally, the first accusative is the object and the second is the complement, but, as here in Romans 10:9, this is not always the case. Since Jesus is a proper name, even though it follows the noun Lord by way of word order, Jesus functions as the direct object of the verb confess, and the other accusative, Lord, is its complement (See Daniel Wallace, An Exegetical Syntax of the Greek New Testament, Preliminary Draft, Zondervan, p. 151. The final version will be out in the Summer of 1996). So the confession that is required is that Jesus is Lord, i.e., Yahweh, the God of the Old Testament.
Obviously, when a person confesses that Christ is God there is an underlying recognition or awareness that Christ has the right to rule one s life, but the passage is not calling for a subjective commitment to Christ s lordship in order to be saved. Instead, the passage is saying that for a person to be saved, he or she must acknowledge, believe, that Jesus was also God, God come in the flesh, the God-man and so the only one able to save.
Not all Scripture is Relevant
The lordship position rules out a large portion of the epistles as being relevant like Romans 6 and 12.
If being a true believer includes commitment or total surrender, then why do we have these passages which were written to believers? If they were written, as it is claimed, simply to challenge us to more commitment, then how much is enough to be saved? Again we must ask the question, is it 10% or 50%, etc.? Where and how do we draw the line? The Bible say, you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart? This is to be the goal, but does anyone ever measure up? And if so, for how long?
These passages in Romans and many others show us that saved people, true Christians whom Paul thought of as saved, do not settle the matter of the personal, subjective lordship of Christ until after they are saved. Paul deals with the gospel and the how of salvation in Romans 1-3, but he doesn t deal with lordship or commitment until chapters 6 and 12. If commitment or surrender to the lordship of Christ was a part of the gospel, then the Apostle either didn t know it or was careless in his responsibility. We know neither of these could be the truth for He wrote under the inspiration of the Spirit.
Our good works are not always measurable and observable by men, not even by ourselves--especially when it comes to motives (1 Cor. 4:4-5). Further, unbelievers can and do point to their good works, but they are unsaved.
The Issue of Divine Discipline
It is contrary to those passage which teach Christians can be disciplined unto physical death while still viewed as saved (1 Cor. 5:1f; 11:28f; 1 John 5:16-17).
These are passages written to Christians about Christians who were clearly not living for the Lord and would be disciplined as God s children, in some cases, even unto physical death, yet they are still viewed as saved. Of course, these passages are usually applied to unbelievers by those in the lordship camp.
Assault 3:
Believe and Be Baptized
The Baptismal Salvation View
Baptismal regenerationists, as we might call them, are not simply promoting water baptism as an important responsibility for a believer in Christ. This position says that unless one is baptized with a view to salvation, i.e., unless he or she is trusting in baptism for salvation along with belief in Jesus Christ, he or she is lost. Simply believing in Jesus Christ does not save. Belief alone is not enough. In fact, some maintain, as I was once told by an advocate of this view, that even if you have been baptized, it has no value unless you were baptized with a view to salvation and trusting in the baptism to save you.
The Free Grace Salvation View of Water Baptism
Water baptism is a ritual act that symbolizes a spiritual truth or reality. It is a public confession which portrays one s faith in the person and work of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit which joins the Christian into union with Christ and identifies him or her with Christ s death, burial and resurrection unto new life. Baptism in water, a ritual, portrays that which is real, the baptism by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-13).
The ritual itself cannot save, but the truth it represents does bring deliverance first from sin s penalty through one s faith in Christ, and then deliverance from the power of sin as one appropriates the power of Christ s death and resurrection by faith (Rom. 6:1-14).
Arguments Against Water
Baptism as Essential for Salvation
It is Contrary to the Emphasis in John
While some form of the word believe is found some 98 times in the gospel of John, it is tremendously significant that this gospel which is written that men might have eternal life and be saved (John 20:31) does not once mention baptism.
What about the Lord s words to Nicodemus in John 3:5? Can the water refer to water baptism as an essential part of regeneration? Regarding this passage Ed Blum writes:
Various views are given to explain Jesus words about being born of water and the Spirit: (1) The water refers to the natural birth, and the Spirit to the birth from above. (2) The water refers to the Word of God (Eph. 5:26). (3) The water refers to baptism as an essential part of regeneration. (This view contradicts other Bible verses that make it clear that salvation is by faith alone; e.g., John 3:16, 36; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5.) (4) The water is a symbol of the Holy Spirit (John 7:37-39). (5) The water refers to the repentance ministry of John the Baptist, and the Spirit refers to the application by the Holy Spirit of Christ to an individual.
The fifth view has the merit of historical propriety as well as theological acceptability. John the Baptist had stirred the nation by his ministry and stress on repentance (Matt. 3:1-6). Water would remind Nicodemus of the Baptist s emphasis. So Jesus was saying that Nicodemus, in order to enter the kingdom, needed to turn to Him (repent) in order to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit.24
But even if Blum is correct, repent, especially in view of the emphasis in John, is a synonym for believing in Christ.
Rather, it is better to understand that the Lord intended Nicodemus to think in terms of Old Testament passages like Ezekiel 36:25-27 and the cleansing and regenerating work of the Holy Spirit. The Greek has only one preposition with both nouns, water and Spirit connected by and (kai). We can translate of water, even the Spirit.
We have two parallel phrases which are genitive constructions in the Greek text: (a) washing of regeneration and (b) renewing by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration and Holy Spirit are both in the genitive case. There are several uses of the genitive case in Greek, but with nouns of action like washing and renewing, the noun in the genitive points to the thing to which the action is referred, either as subject or object of the verbal idea. Are washing and renewing objective genitives or subjective genitives? If subjective, they produce the action as is evidenced by the translation of the NASB and the NIV, renewing/renewal by the Holy Spirit. Paul is writing of a renewing accomplished by the Holy Spirit, and not vice versa, i.e., a renewing which produces the Holy Spirit, an obvious absurdity. Both of these clauses are preceded by only one preposition by (dia), and are connected by and (kai). This would suggest two things: (a) Because of the parallel arrangement, we would expect both genitives to be the same, either objective or subjective, and since the second phrase can only be a subjective genitive, a renewal by the Holy Spirit, so must the first, a washing by regeneration. (b) The and (kai) is ascensive or explicative meaning even, or namely, so that the second clause is a further explanation of the first. We could render it grammatically, the washing produced by regeneration, even (or namely) the rebirth accomplished by the Holy Spirit. Regeneration results in a spiritual cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and this is part of the rebirth work of the Holy Spirit.
This fits with Titus 3:5, by the washing produced by regeneration (rebirth), even the renewal by the Holy Spirit (See below for an explanation of Titus 3:5).
It is Contrary to the Teaching of Paul
Romans 4:1-12: Verses 1-6 clearly show how a man is justified by faith apart from human works. Then, in verses 7-12 Paul uses Old Testament circumcision to illustrate the fact salvation has always been the same in every age. Men of every age are saved by walking in the steps of Abraham. He shows that Old Testament saints were justified by faith alone before circumcision was ever instituted.
But the truly important principle is that circumcision is to the Old Testament believer what water baptism is to the New Testament believer. The following parallels are instructive:
CIRCUMCISION Physical, by a knife, by human agency, and visible to others. A sign of faith in God s work, but not the means of salvation.
BAPTISM Physical, by water, by human agency, visible to others. A sign of faith in God s work, but not the means of salvation.
The point is, people are saved by faith alone apart from any kind of law, ritual, or ordinance.
Colossians 2:11-12. This passage also illustrates the above parallel. Circumcision in verse 11 is one made without hands. It is a spiritual work of God. It follows by the natural parallel that the baptism of verse 12 is the spiritual work of God, one made without hands. It is the baptism accomplished by the Holy Spirit of which water baptism is only a picture. The rite of circumcision of the Old Testament and the ordinance of baptism in the New Testament both illustrate the work of God for man through Jesus Christ. The rituals are only pictures of the real which alone saves through faith alone.
1 Corinthians 1:14-16. In this passage the Apostle somewhat de-emphasizes water baptism. The Apostle can hardly be said to have viewed baptism as indispensable to the gospel message. Not only was it his practice not to baptize his own converts, but he shows us here that water baptism as necessary for salvation is not a part of the gospel as is faith. The gospel message is that Jesus Christ, the God-man Savior, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and we that can receive eternal life as a gift through faith. If baptism was necessary to be saved through the gospel, Paul could hardly have said For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel,
Ephesians 2:8-9. Baptism is clearly a human work that man does. Here the Apostle clearly declares that the basis of salvation is God s grace through faith alone.
Titus 3:5. We should immediately be suspicious of an interpretation which understands the washing here to refer to any human ritual or work because of the emphasis of verse 5a. No mention is made here of faith perhaps because the emphasis is totally on what God has done rather than on any kind of religious or ritual work that man could possibly do-- including water baptism. Unfortunately, some see the words washing of regeneration as a reference to baptismal regeneration even though this context is prefaced by, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done Can this refer to water baptism? Not on your life! Why?
· The immediate context is emphasizing that salvation is a work of God and not man.
· Water baptism, no matter how you slice it, is a religious work. If water baptism is the basis of our regeneration, then it is a work of our righteousness or a righteous act produced by us.
· The passage is telling us that regeneration results in a spiritual cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and this is part of the rebirth work of the Holy Spirit. We can translate the last part of verse 5 as by the washing produced by regeneration, even the rebirth produce by the Holy Spirit. 25
It is Contrary to Luke 23:43
The thief on the cross was saved by faith alone. He obviously could not be circumcised or baptized. The principle applies regardless of whether one wants to argue that he was still in the Old Testament economy. He was saved by faith alone. The corresponding ritual or ordinance for the Old Testament period was circumcision, yet the thief on the cross was neither circumcised nor baptized, but he did get saved.
Answers to Passages Used to
Support Baptismal Regeneration
Mark 16:16
First, there is a manuscript problem. The older and what many believe to be the better manuscripts do not contain verses 9-20. So there is some question as to whether these verse were a part of the original manuscript of Mark. First, it is theologically unsound to try to build a doctrine or support one on verses where there is a manuscript problem.
Second, assuming that these verses were a part of Mark s gospel, does this passage teach that baptism is essential for salvation? Verse 16b, but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned answers our question. It is the unbelief that results in condemnation, not the failure to be baptized. Furthermore, baptized could be a reference to the baptism of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 12:13).
Water baptism is an evidence of one s faith and a public testimony of what one believes. For this reason Mark included the concept of baptism with belief. But since it is not water baptism that saves, since belief is the issue, he quickly added the last half of verse 16.
Acts 2:38
First, we should recognize there are two possible grammatical ways this passage may be understood. The preposition for (Greek, eis) in the clause for the forgiveness of your sins can mean with a view to, in order that, (pointing to purpose), or it can mean on the basis of, because of (pointing to result) as it is used in Matthew 12:41, they repented at (on the basis of, as a result of) the preaching of Jonah. This simply shows that Acts 2:38 can mean Repent, and each of you be baptized as a result of the forgiveness of your sins Rather than saying, Repent and be baptized in order to receive the forgiveness of sins, Peter was saying, Repent, and on the basis of receiving forgiveness, be baptized.
Chafer/Walvoord have a good explanation of this difficult passage:
As previously mentioned, in Peter s sermon at Pentecost, he included baptism along with belief as a way of salvation (Acts 2:38). It should be remembered that as baptism is mentioned in Scripture, sometimes it refers to real baptism, that is, the baptism of the Holy Spirit which occurs at the moment of faith and in other cases to the ritual of water baptism. It is possible to take this verse in either sense. If it refers to real baptism, then Peter was saying that if the Jews believed and had this belief confirmed by being baptized into the body of Christ, they would be saved. Or if it refers to water baptism then Peter was saying that that ritual was an outward confirmation of their faith. In any case immediately afterward, Peter baptized 3,000 (v. 41), who were by this token publicly aligning themselves with Christ and indicating that they were leaving their former Jewish confidence in the Law. ... continued in next post ...
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

continued from previous post, because text is too long

Post by email » Wed May 11, 2005 1:35 am

For Jews to confess Christ publicly was a real problem because they often lost their families, their employment, and their wealth. For their faith to be confirmed by water baptism in this case made clear that they were genuinely saved. In any event ritual baptism does not save, and the reference to baptism in verse 38 does not suggest that water baptism was a requirement for salvation. The many instances in which faith is mentioned as a condition of salvation without reference to baptism should make this clear. Even Peter himself later said that forgiveness of sins is based on faith alone (10:43; 13:38-39).
In Acts 19 some Jews in Ephesus had been baptized by John the Baptist but had not put their trust in Christ. When they were informed that it was necessary for them to believe in Christ, the Scriptures recorded, On hearing this, they were baptized into the name of the Lord Jesus (v. 5). This again makes clear that water baptism in itself does not save but is a token or evidence that a person has put his trust in Christ.26
Acts 22:16.
There are two commands (Greek imperatives) in this verse, but only one brings about the removal of sin, calling upon the name of the Lord, i.e., telling God you believe and trusting in His Son. The sentence, Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His name should, according to Greek grammar, be divided into separate clauses with a semicolon placed after be baptized. Arise, be baptized (clause one); and wash away your sins by calling on the Name of the Lord (clause two). Baptism cannot wash away one s sins. It is calling on the Lord, telling God you believe in His Son which is simply a way of expressing one s faith in Christ.
1 Pet. 3:18-21
In this passage, Peter tells us that baptism is prefigured by the deliverance of Noah s family by water (cf. 3:20). Saving by baptism, therefore, is symbolic here, not actual. Peter quickly adds two statements lest he be misunderstood. Salvation in this passage is not based upon water baptism, but upon the resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is not based upon the putting away of the filth of the flesh.
Assault 4:
Believe and Confess Christ Publicly
The late Dr. Chafer wrote regarding this issue:
The ambition to secure apparent results and the sincere desire to make decisions for Christ to be definite have prompted preachers in their general appeals to insist upon a public confession of Christ on the part of those who would be saved. To all practical purposes and in the majority of instances these confessions are, in the minds of the unsaved, coupled with saving faith and seem, as presented, to be of equal importance with that faith.
Two passages are often used in order to justify public confession, Matthew 10:32-33 and Romans 10:9.
Matthew 10:32-33
Everyone therefore who shall confess Me before men, I will also confess him before My Father who is in heaven. But whoever shall deny Me before men, I will also deny him before My Father who is in heaven.
Does this passage call for the public confession of the Savior as a part of the gospel message and as one of the requirements for salvation? If so, the 150 plus passages in the New Testament that call for simple faith in Christ would have to be wrong. Rather, the Lord was challenging, not unbelievers, but His own disciples with regard to the commission He gave them to go to the lost sheep of Israel (vss. 1-15). Such a task, due to the hostility of the religious leaders of Israel and the world in general (vss. 15-20), especially in the days of the Tribulation just before the return of Christ (vss. 21-23), would put them at risk of persecution. So there is the warning that if people maligned and persecuted the Savior, the disciples too could expect persecution (vss. 24-25). He then encouraged them against fear (vss. 26-31), challenged them to confess Him before men, and warned them against denying Him before men (vss. 32-33). This challenge and warning in this context refers to the commission of the disciples and, by application, to the responsibility of believers (those already saved) to be witnesses of the Savior.
To deny Christ before men would indicate that either (a) the one denying Christ was not truly saved, in which case, they would not be owned by Christ as one of His in His work as advocate before the Father, or (b) evidence that they were out of fellowship and operating in fear rather than in faith, in which case Christ would deny them rewards at the Judgment Seat (Bema) of Christ (1 Cor. 3:12-15; Rom. 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:9-10; 2 Tim. 2:11-13). Peter, who denied the Lord during His trial before the High Priest (Matt. 26:57-75), is a good illustration of how believers may deny the Savior.
Romans 10:9
This is perhaps the primary passage used to defend adding the need of confession, so the focus here will be to give an overview of Romans 10:1-21.
The Prayer and Desire for Israel s Salvation (10:1).
In these verses we see the subject of the passage--the salvation of Jewish people. However, it obviously has application to the subject of leading men and women to Christ.
The Problem of Israel s Self-righteousness (10:2-3)
It is essential to note that the verses in question, verses 9-10, are often used to teach men must make some kind of public confession to be saved, perform a human work. These verses are set in a context where Paul shows this is precisely the problem with the nation of Israel as a whole: the problem of trying to do something to gain the favor of God. So rather than supporting public confession as a work that men do, the context supports the opposite conclusion.
The Provision of Righteousness Through Faith Alone (10:4-13)
(1) Christ s Termination of the Law for Righteousness (vs. 4). Christ brought an end to the Law as a means of righteousness or acceptance with God. The purpose of the Law was to show man s sinfulness. But a further outworking of this is that neither the Law nor any works system can gain merit or favor with God. The reason is seen when we compare Romans 8:1-3. All systems of law are dependent on man s weakness to fulfill them and man always falls short and misses the mark (Rom. 3:23).
(2) Moses Declaration About Those Who Practice the Law (vs. 5). If a person seeks acceptance with God by keeping the Law, he must live by it, i.e., he must perfectly obey it or he becomes condemned by the Law itself (cf. Jam. 2:10-11; Gal. 5:3; Rom. 2:25 with Rom. 3:19-20; 7:7). Since no man can fulfill the Law, all men miss the mark and become condemned by the Law which finds man guilty (2 Cor. 3:6, 7, 9; Rom. 7:10-11).
(3) God s Initiation of Salvation by Grace Through the Message of Faith (vss. 6-8). Regarding these verses Ryrie writes: Quoting Deuteronomy 30:12-14, which emphasized the initiative of divine grace and humble reception of God s word, Paul applies this truth to the gospel, which is near, ready for a man to take on his lips and into his heart (Rom. 10:9) (Ryrie Study Bible, p 1716). Note carefully that this word which man is to take on his lips and into his heart Paul defines as the word (message) of faith which we are preaching. The message is not one of works, but one of faith in God s work brought down to man in grace. But what exactly is this message of grace?
Paul s Description of the Grace Message (vss. 9-13).
(1) The Message Described (vs. 9).
Confess, homologeo, means to agree with, say the same thing, acknowledge. As the context will show, the confession here is not to men, but to God and involves, as an outworking of faith in Christ, acknowledging to God one s faith in Christ as God come in the flesh. It involves agreeing with God s witness about Jesus as God s own Son. Literally the text says, the Lord Jesus, but as explained above, it means acknowledging that Jesus is God. The passage is talking about acknowledging the deity of Christ and thus the fact of the incarnation (cf. 1 John 2:22-23; 4:2, 15 which uses the same word, homologeo). This passage is not calling for submission to Christ in the sense of lordship salvationists.27
And believe in your heart This is the root--believing in the fact that God raised Him from the dead. Here we have the finished and efficacious work of Jesus Christ, His death for sin, authenticated by Christ s resurrection. Remember, the resurrection declares that Jesus is God s Son and that His death successfully dealt with man s sin. Perhaps the point here is that this belief in Christ, that He is the God-man Savior, causes men to confess their faith to God in a prayer for salvation as the context will show (vss. 12b-13).
(2) The Message Explained (vss. 10-13)
For with Note the word for. This introduces this section, verses 10-13, as an explanation of verse 9 and the words confess and believe. Note that Paul now begins with believe, not confess. He began verse 9 with confess because of the order of the Old Testament quote used in verse 8--mouth and then heart. But with verse 20, Paul reverses the order and deals with heart and believe before mouth and confess because this is the main issue.
In this he uses a chiasm, an arrangement of the clauses in such a way that they bring out the most important and central element of the passage.
Overview of Romans 10:8-14

THE AVAILABILITY OF SALVATION
ROM 10:8 But what does it say? The word is near you, in your mouth and in your heart that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, Points to the initiative of God s grace in bringing salvation to men.
MAN S RESPONSIBILITY
ROM 10:9 that if you confess with your mouth Jesus {as} Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved; 1. Confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord. In this context which deals with Israel s rejection of Jesus, it means to acknowledge to God that Jesus is Yahweh of the OT. Is an affirmation of His deity.2. Believe in the resurrection which confirms one s faith in all that the resurrection proves (Rom. 1:4; 4:24-25).
PAUL S EXPLANATION OF VERSE 9
ROM 10:10a for with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, (10b) and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation. 1. Verse 10a--With the heart, from the inner man, man believes, puts his trust in the person of Christ which gives Christ s righteousness and salvation.2. Verse 10b--With the mouth he confesses, acknowledges, affirms to God his faith in Christ resulting in salvation.
PAUL S SCRIPTURAL JUSTIFICATION FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT (VSS. 11-13)
ROM 10:11-12a For the Scripture says, Whoever believes in Him will not be disappointed. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; [Explains faith]ROM 10:12b-13--for the same {Lord} is Lord of all, abounding in riches for all who call upon Him; for Whoever will call upon the name of the Lord will be saved. [Explains confess] 1. Verses 11-12a--Quotes Isa. 28:16 to show Salvation comes by faith (man s first responsibility). This explains the whoever, in vs. 11, i.e., there is no distinction between Jew and Greek (cf. Rom. 3:22, 29).2. Verses 12b-13--Explains the other part of man s responsibility, the confession of the mouth. It means to call on the name of the Lord.
THE QUESTION
ROM 10:14 How then shall they call upon Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher? Here again, the two key ideas, belief and calling on the Lord, are linked together and this corresponds to belief and confessing with the mouth in vss. 9-10.
The Priority of Preaching the Faith Alone Message (14-17)
Since the issue is faith in the work of God for man in the person and work of Jesus Christ, there is an important question that must be answered. How can men turn from their religious works, as with the Jews, so they may come to Christ by faith alone? Only through the work of evangelism through believers who understand the message and go out proclaiming the glad tidings of God s gracious gift.
Note the emphasis: The Jews by-in-large rejected the message of grace because of their works mentality. Nevertheless, faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the Word of Christ, i.e., the telling of the story about the Lord Jesus Christ as the one and only means of salvation.
Assault 5:
Believe and Do Good Works
Another assault on the gospel message of salvation through faith alone in Christ alone is believe and do good works. The idea promoted is that one must both believe and do good works in order to be saved. If the good works are not present, then, either (a) you were never saved, you never really believed, or (b) you lost your salvation, or (c) you never got saved because you lack the good works required.
Some would argue that we are saved by faith alone, but if faith is alone (if there are no works), then you are not saved, your faith was only an intellectual faith, not a heart faith. In this view faith is usually redefined to include turning from sin and surrendering one s life to Christ. Assurance then, in the final analysis, is based on one s works or record rather than on the work of Christ and the sure promises of the Word like 1 John 5:11-13 and John 5:24.
In the final analysis of the works viewpoint, works are added to faith in Christ in order to be save. This means SALVATION BY WORKS AND ASSURANCE BY WORKS.
The Argument
The argument is that genuine faith always results in good works. Because of new life imparted to believers via spiritual regeneration, and because of the presence of the Holy Spirit in every believer s life, those who have genuinely believed the gospel message about the person and work of Jesus Christ will, as a general rule, produce some fruit, sometime, somehow. Jesus said:
He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him. As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also shall live because of Me (John 6:56-57).
As the context suggests (vss. 60-69) eating His flesh and drinking His blood refers to the initial act of believing in Christ. This results in the gifts of regeneration and eternal life (vss. 50-51, 54, 58). But it also means the believer is brought into a new relationship with the Savior so that he abides (remains) in fellowship with Him (vs. 56). But it is this abiding or fellowship which is the cause for fruitfulness or good works in the life of the believer (John 15) and not just the presence of new life.
The Lord was speaking of a general maxim, of what is generally true. He was not stating an absolute--that which will always be true in the life of the believer. Many quote this passage and say, See, true believers will abide and bear fruit and so prove they were really saved. I believe that view is wrong because the Lord knew some Christians would not abide or remain in fellowship with Him, and the proof of this is John 15 where He commanded the disciples to continue to abide. If it is not possible to stop abiding, lose fellowship with the Lord, and thus stop bearing fruit, why would the Lord warn His disciples about this possible failure? This is what He does in John 15:1-6.
As a general rule, every Christian will bear some fruit, somewhere, sometime, somehow. But having said that, there are a few points of caution we need to make that affect the concept of good works or fruitfulness and their use as proofs for salvation and assurance.
As John 15 and many other passages of Scripture teach, the general maxim that believers will bear fruit does not mean that all believers will be fruitful or that a believer will always be fruitful (compare Paul s admonition to good works: Tit. 3:14; 2 Pet. 1:8). Both of these passages indicate that a true believer might be unfruitful. These exhortations would be meaningless otherwise. The same principle applies to the Lord s admonition for us to abide in Him that we might be fruitful.
Though the following remarks bear on the lordship/mastery issue, they also apply here since these two issues (good works and lordship) are really tied together. How much fruit or good works do believers need to prove they are saved? How do we measure the amount of works or fruit necessary to be sure we are saved in the lordship/mastery or believe/works sense of the term? Or how do we quantify the amount of defection that can be tolerated without wondering if I have saving faith or if I in fact lost what I formerly had? 28
Ryrie writes:
The lordship response, in spite of its stringent demands on the nature of what the view calls saving faith, must either say (1) that a disobedient Christian loses his salvation, or (2) that some leeway exists for disobedience within the Christian life. Since many lordship people hold to the security of the believer, they opt for the latter.
So we read a statement like this: A moment of failure does not invalidate a disciple s credentials (John MacArthur, The Gospel According to Jesus, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1988, p. 199). My immediate reaction to such a statement is to want to ask if two moments would? Or a week of defection, or a month, or a year? or Two? How serious a failure and for how long before we must conclude that such a person was in fact not saved? Lordship teaching recognizes that no one will obey perfectly (Ibid, p. 174), but the crucial question is simply how imperfectly can one obey and yet be sure that he believed in the lordship/mastery salvation sense? If salvation requires total transformation (Ibid, p. 183) and I do not meet that requirement, then am I not saved? Or if my transformation is less than total tat any stage of my Christian life, was I not saved in the first place?29
Here then is a key question: How imperfectly can one obey or be without works and yet be sure he is saved if works are the criterion for proof of saving faith and eternal life?
On the other hand, if salvation is by faith alone in Christ alone and one s works are a proof of the nature of one s fellowship and maturity, then his works regardless of how small or great, become a criterion for blessing now and rewards in eternity. They concern not my entrance into heaven, but the nature of my inheritance in heaven.
We reap what we sow, but the harvest is not a matter of heaven or possession of eternal life, but blessing versus discipline now, and rewards versus loss of rewards in heaven (Heb. 12:7-13; 1 Cor. 11:28-32; Rom. 8:12-13, 17; Gal. 6:7-9; 1 Cor. 12-15; 2 Cor. 5:9-10).
Ryrie writes,
My understanding of what fruit is and therefore what I expect others to bear may be faulty and/or incomplete. It is all too easy to have a mental list of spiritual fruits and to conclude if someone does not produce what is on my list that he or she is not a believer. But the reality is that most lists that we humans devise are too short, too selective, too prejudiced, and often extra-biblical. God likely has a much more accurate and longer list than most of us do.30
A person s fruit will not necessarily be outwardly evident. A person s fruit may be private or erratic, and just because we do not see someone s fruit does not mean that some fruit is not there. Furthermore, we may see a man s fruit, but we cannot see his heart. We don t know what motivated his works. The works may have been motivated by selfish desires, by his desire to impress, or to be accepted rather than by the Spirit and by love.
Many unbelievers (those who profess no faith in Christ) will demonstrate all kinds of good works like helping the poor, ministering to the sick, caring for their family, self-control, and working for the benefit of the community in other ways. Does this prove they know God? No! Does it save them? No! While works may give evidence of new life and fellowship with the Lord, it is still never a proof because there are too many variables that we just cannot see.
According to Scripture, bonafide fruit in the life of the believer is the result of pruning and abiding, of the work of God as the Vinedresser, and the response of the believer through fellowship and faith. When our Lord said, without Me you can nothing, He was not saying believer s could produce no works, but that there could be no bonafide fruit--works that were the result of new life and the power of the Spirit.
Witnessing for the Lord is a good work, but in order for it to be fruit it needs to be the product of His life working in us. Compare John 15:1-6; 26-27; Acts 1:8 with Matt. 7:13-28 and the warning about false prophets who sounded and looked like sheep, who witnessed and did other things in the name of Christ, but had not built their lives on His truth, i.e., on Christ.
If a person gives a cup of cold water to a thirsty man, it may be:
· The result of fellowship with the Lord and so also of salvation.
· The result of a works-for-salvation mentality like with the religious Pharisees.
· The result of a desire to be accepted by others or to impress people. In this case it is a good work, but not the fruit of the Spirit or of fellowship with the Lord. Motives are important and say a lot about the source (1 Cor. 4:5; Jam. 4:3).
· Or it may be the result of natural human compassion.
If a man claims to be a Christian by the things he does and says: he goes to church, prays, and says he knows the Lord, but refuses to help someone in need when it is within his power, what does this indicate about the man? It could indicate the person is not saved--but not necessarily. Remember, many who do not know Christ help the poor. But refusal can also indicate the person is out of fellowship and not walking by an active faith in the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 John 3:16-17; Gal. 5:22-23; Jam. 2:15-17).
What s the point? Works do not necessarily prove a man s salvation. Then what are some of the values of a person s good works?
The Value of Works (Fruit)
Because of the many variables and the problems outlined above, works are not designed to be the fundamental means of assurance of salvation. Assurance is based on something more absolute--the work of Christ and the Word. (Assurance of Salvation was covered in Lesson 2 of Book 1 in this series, The Assured Life.
· Good works glorify God especially when our motives are right and He is the source of those works because we are abiding in Christ (1 Cor. 4:5; 6:20; 2 Cor. 9:13; 1 Pet. 2:12; 4:16).
· Good works witness to others of God s love and of the truth of the claims of Christ. They can give evidence of the authenticity and power of the gospel (2 Cor. 6:3-6; 1 Thess. 2:1-12; John 13:34-35).
· Good works minister God s love to men (1 John 3:17).
· Good works promote peace and order in society (Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:14).
So let s not compromise the gospel of grace by adding anything to what man must do other than believe the message of God s saving love in Christ. Let s all be challenged as believers to grow in Christ, to submit to His lordship, and allow Him to change our lives as we walk in fellowship with the Savior. Let s also remember that one of the evidences of salvation is the discipline of the Lord (Heb. 12:5f).
Thoughts on James 2:14-26
James 2:14-26 is one of the key passages used to support the need of adding works to faith in Christ. The thinking is something like this: We are saved by faith alone, but real faith is never alone, or the faith that saves is never alone, and James 2:14-26 is used to support this position. Does James 2:14-26 support this position?
There are three views on this passage:
(1) James is contradicting the Apostle Paul and teaching salvation by works.
(2) James is teaching that real or genuine faith will produce works and fruitlessness is a sure sign that a person is unsaved. That faith in 2:14, the kind of faith that is without works and fruitless, cannot save from hell.
MacArthur writes,
The Bible teaches clearly that the evidence of God s work in a life is the inevitable fruit of transformed behavior (1 John 3:10). Faith that does not result in righteous living is dead and cannot save (Ja. 2:14-17). Professing Christians utterly lacking the fruit of true righteousness will find no biblical basis for assurance 31
Compare also MacArthur s statement on page 170.
(3) James is writing about the problem of the dead, inoperative faith of a Christian whose faith has lost all of its vitality and productivity because of his or her failure to walk with the Lord in the Word.
There is no question that this is a difficult passage, but much of its difficulty stems from our own preconditioned thinking, theological bias, the nature of English translations, and our understanding of certain words like save, salvation, soul, and translations like that faith in vs. 14.
There is no question that faith without works is in some way defective, but that does not mean that the person is unsaved or that their faith in Christ is not real. Scripture teaches that faith begins as a grain of mustard seed and must grow. If it is not fed and nourished by the Word and fellowship with the Lord, it becomes stagnant, the soul becomes hard, and the life becomes unfruitful.
Over and over again the Scripture posts warning signs for believers against the dangers of unfruitfulness (Tit. 3:8, 14; 2 Pet. 1:8).
The wasteland of barren living was therefore a real and present danger which the New Testament writers faced with candor. In no way did they share the modern illusion that a believer could not enter that wasteland, or live there.32
James Relation to Paul and His Theology
That James is not writing to refute or contradict the doctrine emphasized so strongly in Paul s epistles is seen from two facts: (a) James was written very early, before the epistles of Paul that emphasize justification by faith without works. James was written in 45 A.D. and Galatians and Romans in 49 or 55 and 58. (b) That James and Paul were in harmony and believed in salvation by faith apart from works is clear from Acts 15:1f and Galatians 1:18-21; 2:9.
The Context and Thrust of James
The Recipients: Unquestionably, James was written to believers, to those whom James considered as saved. He was not questioning their salvation. This is apparent from the following:
· He identifies them as brethren in every chapter for a total of 15 times in this epistle (1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1, etc.).
· He refers to his readers as begotten of God (1:18), a reference to regeneration or the new birth as a gift from God (1:17).
· As a warning against partiality he refers to their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (2:1).
· He also speaks about the fair name by which you have been called, a reference to the name Christian because of their faith in Christ and association with the Christian community (Acts 11:26; 1 Pet. 4:16).
· He teaches and challenges them in ways that could only have application or meaning to genuine believers: (a) In 1:2-4 of the goal of trials to mature one s faith and character; (b) In 1:5-8 and 4:2-3 he speaks of their privilege of prayer and of the need to pray in faith with right motives to receive answers for wisdom and to meet their needs; (c) In 1:12 of the promise of the crown of life; (d) In 1:20 of achieving or producing righteous character which has its origin in fellowship with God, i.e. God s righteousness; (e) In 1:21f of receiving the engrafted Word which, like a mirror, is able to expose us and bring about much needed change; (f) And in 4:5 of the jealous concern of the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers to keep us faithful to the Lord, the Groom of the bride (cf. 4:4).
The Problem and Concern
While James knew his readers were born again, he also knew how they desperately needed to take in the Word and respond to its truth. The facts of the epistle show that though they were religious and orthodox in their faith, they were carnal, worldly, and legalistic. Legalism always nullifies the power of Christ in believers lives. It means they are trusting in their own ability and good works to be accepted with God and to feel significant.
As is clear in the epistles of Paul, this does not mean they were unsaved or only professing Christians. But it does mean they were unfruitful because they were laboring under the weakness of their own ability.
They were begotten of God (1:18), they were brethren (1:2, 16, 19, 2:1), they had faith in Christ (2:1), but they were religionists as is evident by James warning in 1:26 and by the following facts: (a) They were hearing the Word though not applying it (1:22-26); (b) they were meeting together as an assembly of believers (2:2); (c) they prided themselves on having the Law (2:10-11), and (d) some were wanting to be teachers in the assembly and were priding themselves on their mature wisdom (3:1-2).
So, while they had real faith in Christ for salvation (2:1), they were not experiencing the liberty and deliverance that should accompany salvation. Their faith in Him for daily living was dead and inoperative just as with the Christians in Galatia. Like the Galatians, they had fallen from a grace/faith way of life under the power of the Spirit (Gal. 5:1-5).
Again, they were external religionists who were seeking to live the Christian life by their own ability and this had neutralized the power of God. They had some religious works in the form of certain religious activities as mentioned, but they lacked a moment-by-moment vital faith fellowship with the Lord in and through: (a) the mirror activity of the engrafted Word (1:19-25); (b) through the ministry of the indwelling Spirit (4:5); and (c) through drawing near to God in honest confession and humble brokenness before God (1:21; 4:7-10).
While being religious externalists, they were being dominated by man s wisdom and strategies for handling life rather than by God s wisdom, the wisdom of the Word which they needed to apply personally (1:2-27). They were controlled by that which is earthly, worldly, natural, demonic (1:13-16; 3:13-18; 4:1-4).
As a result, while religious, they were lacking in bonafide Christ-like other-oriented works. They were under God s discipline and perhaps on the verge of discipline unto death (cf. 1:21; 2:14; and 5:14-15, 19-20).
The following illustrates the failures of their inactive faith which failed to appropriate their wealth in Christ: (a) They were frustrated by trials (1:2-4). (b) The rich were trusting in their riches (1:10-11; 5:1f). (c) The poor were complaining of their lack (1:9). (d) They were ignoring those in need (1:27; 2:15-17). (e) They were guilty of sinful attitudes which were manifesting themselves in sins of the tongue--in fighting, quarreling, and criticizing (3:2-4:2, 11f). (f) They were guilty of favoritism (2:1f). (g) They were guilty of putting their business ahead of the Lord (4:13-17).
The Key Words of James 2:14f:
(1) Faith: James is not talking about a real versus a false or spurious faith, one which only claims to be real, but really is not. These were brethren (vs. 14), true believers with real faith in Christ for salvation. But as for their daily walk, their faith was dead, inoperative, and unproductive. Faith, in order to work and be productive, must have a valid object and be energized by fellowship with the Lord; it must grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Their faith had a valid object for salvation from sin s penalty, but not for the Christian life and victory against the power of sin. Again, compare Paul s argument in Galatians and in Colossians. See also Matthew 6:30; Colossians 2:6; Romans 10:17; 2 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2:13.
(2) Save: In James 1:21, James speaks about the Word s ability to save your souls. Compare also 2:14 and 5:20. We need to be careful that we do not misunderstand this. The modern English translation has for many only one religious meaning-- to be saved from hell. But this is not what James meant nor what his readers would have understood. By context, this meant to save your life from God s divine discipline and the self-made misery of walking out of fellowship. Five times James uses the word sozo, to save, which means:
· to save or deliver from peril, injury, suffering, or physical death (Matt. 8:25; 14:30; 27:40, 42; Mk. 13:20; Jam. 4:12; 5:20).
· to heal, restore to health or strength (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:24; Jam. 5:15).
· to save or deliver in a spiritual sense from the penalty, power, and presence of sin (1 Cor. 1:21; Jam. 1:21; 2:14; 1 Tim. 1:15). Used of the past, present, and future aspects of salvation. Some passages could refer to all aspects of salvation, past, present, and future.
We simply cannot limit this word to mean salvation from hell. James is clearly saying their faith, in the condition it was in, could not save or deliver anyone from the things that were dominating their lives. But he is not talking about salvation from hell. Why should he? This does not fit the context as demonstrated above. He did need to warn them, however, about the bondage and futility of legalism and dead orthodoxy, and about the consequences of sin-- the loss of rewards and divine discipline even to the point of death (1:15, 21; 4:12; 5:1-4, 7-8, 9, 14-16, 20).
(3) Soul: Soul is pseuche which is translated life or lives as often as it is translated soul (43 versus 47 times in the NASB). In some cases (as in James 1:21) it would be better to translate it with the English word life or lives.
(4) Works: James is speaking of deeds and actions which are the product of a vital, growing, productive faith in the indwelling Spirit (Jam. 4:5) and the engrafted Word (Jam. 1:21). Paul, by contrast, speaks of dead works which are done apart from faith, which proceed from the flesh and which are done to gain merit with God.
(5) Justified: This is the Greek, dikaioo, which has two uses: (a) To declare or pronounce righteous and refers to the imputation of righteousness through faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1). (b) But it may also mean to show to be righteous (Mat. 11:19; Luke 7:35; Rom. 3:4; 1 Tim. 3:16) (Abbot-Smith; Thayer). James uses it in this way in 2:21.
Conclusion
Hodges sums up the issue for the book of James and writes,
James understood how easily Christians, who knew the great truth that God accepted us on the basis of faith alone, could fall into the error of downplaying good works altogether. He understood how readily doctrinal correctness could take precedence over practical, everyday obedience. In short, he knew the danger of dead orthodoxy.
One of Satan s methods of assault is to get us to lock up our shield of faith into our theological armory so that we never employ it on the field of combat and everyday life.
Too often Christians go about proudly proclaiming their theological position, their orthodoxy, and ungraciously denounce those who believe differently. They talk like theologians and behave like enemies at war.33
In his little epistle, Jude calls upon the Church to contend for the faith (Jude 3). For us today, the faith refers to the body of revealed truth that has been handed down in the Scripture. It concerns the great fundamental truths of Scripture concerning subjects such as God, Jesus Christ, man, salvation, the Bible, and things to come including the personal return of the Lord.
This body of truth is called the faith because it must be received by faith, and because the faith contains the gospel which is a message of grace offering man a salvation that is free, without price, one that is to be received by faith rather than by human works.
But from as early as Acts 15, the church has had to contend against assaults on the gospel wherein people have tried to add some form of human works to faith alone whereby we could gain salvation like works of the Law, or circumcision, or its counterpart for today, water baptism. Truly, the gospel of God s grace in Christ is under siege and we need to be able to contend for the faith.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Jun 22, 2005 1:57 am

Rarely are correspondence courses posted publically, because of their inherently private nature. However, an exception is made in this case, because the submitted answers so well present the classic objections to baptism.

Minus personal references, the following edited response was offered:
email wrote:What does "salvation" mean to you?: It means that I know when I die that I will be in heaven with God.
Assurance is certainly one benefit of being saved.
email wrote:What is our condition before God? (Romans 3:23; I John 1:8): YES
My apologies. This question has since been reworded, but you got the correct answer. Yes, each one of us in definite need of salvation. Without God's mercy, we each would ultimately stand before God condemned as sinners, "for all have sinned..."
email wrote:Through whom does man receive salvation? (Ephesians 1:7; Acts 4:12): Jesus Christ
Amen!
email wrote:To whom is the gospel invitation open? (Romans 1:16; Matthew 28:19): Everyone
I agree with your answer; however, this seems logically inconsistent with your answers given to later questions. More on this below...
email wrote:What were the apostles commanded to do? (Matthew 28:19): Make disciples.
And, how were they to make disciples?
Jesus wrote:"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matthew 28:19)
Based on your obvious understanding of both the Greek and English languages, I am sure that you realize that "baptizing..." modifies "make disciples", explaining how they were to do this. The question that needs to be answered is, "Can one go to heaven and not be a disciple of Christ"? How can they be a disciple, if they do not conform to the pattern given by Jesus to His apostles in the great, unlimited commission?
email wrote:After being taught the gospel of Jesus, what did people do? (Acts 8:38; Acts 16:33): After they were saved they were baptised as a testimony of their faith.
Where in these verses do we find the phrase "after being saved", or such like? You may disagree with the direction of the questions, but we should never inject words not found in the passage, lest we be found to eisegete, or "read into" the passage. Although other passages may ultimately lead us to your conclusion, it still remains a dangerous thing to put the words of your conclusion into God's text. Such crutches become a stumbling block to us, but more importantly, they become a stumbling block to the innocent children, who will follow us.
email wrote:After believing, when were these people baptized? (Acts 8:38; Acts 16:33): After they were saved.
Again, I don't see "after they were saved" anywhere in the text. Instead, we see an urgency, an immediacy to being baptized. Although not conclusive, this does stand in stark contrast to the modern practice of getting several people together over the span of multiple months for a single grand ceremony. Although this is not necessarily conclusive, it should get the wheels turning for even the most prejudiced mind.
email wrote:In what manner was the Eunuch baptized? (Acts 8:38): By imersion
Agreed!
email wrote:What did Jesus do immediately after being baptized? (Matthew 3:16): Go intp the wilderness.
Yes, that is true, but we read of something happening even more "immediately":
Matthew wrote:"When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him." (Matthew 3:16)
Please notice that Jesus "came up from the water". Like the eunuch, Jesus was immersed, as is suggested by this verse.
email wrote:Why were they baptizing in the city of Aenon? (John 3:23): As a testimony of their faith in Christ and because there was much water.
Primarily, I am concerned with why you again saw fit to supply the wording, "As a testimony of their faith in Christ". Please show me where this wording, or similar, can be found in the text. Where did you read this?

The point of this question was to add further evidence to immersion being the form of baptism, as is mandated by the very meaning of the word. If a simple sprinkling, or pouring of water was all that was required, then we must ask ourselves, "Why did John need 'much water'?" And, "Why did the Spirit see fit to provide us this information, if it was not relevant to the context of baptism?"
email wrote:If "much water" was required, and those baptized went down into and came up out of the water, then were people immersed or sprinkled in th New Testament?: Immersion
Correct! We seem to be in agreement on the form of baptism! Yea!!
email wrote:What other types of water baptism, if any, are referenced in the Bible? (Acts 1:4-5) : There is water here in these verses it is Spirit baptism.1 Cor. 12:13
There are at least 4 mentioned in total: John's water baptism, Jesus' water baptism of the Great commission, baptism in the Holy Spirit, and baptism in fire. More information is provided in the following article on reconciling these multiple baptisms with Paul's statement that there is only "one baptism" (Ephesians 4:4-6):

http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles ... ptism.html
email wrote:Is belief in Christ all that God commands to be saved? (James 2:19): YES
I must respectfully disagree. James' very point in this verse is that belief is not enough. In fact, even the demons believe, "and tremble". Their belief is sincere, and their fear is sincere. However, they were not obedient. If belief is enough, then what about the demons?

Anticipating an argument used elsewhere - If this passage is about discipleship, and higher and lower rewards in heaven, then why did James turn to the inhabitants of hell as a warning to us? I don't think demons will be in heaven, on a lower level, or anywhere else.
email wrote:What must accompany one's faith? (James 2:20): Yes Eph 2:8-9,
There is a vast difference between "meritorious works" that earn salvation and "conditional works" that God places upon the gift. Please allow me to illustrate:

Let us imagine that I sent a bulk email stating that whoever responds first will receive a million dollars, and someone does just that. Later, they receive a million dollar check in the mail, which they quickly drive to the bank and deposit. Did they "earn" that a million dollars? Can we not say that the million dollars was a "gift"? Did they "deserve" a million dollars just for emailing me, checking their mail, and then depositing the check in the bank?

Conditions do not invalidate the grace of God. If baptism and confession earned baptism, then every person who ever dove in the deep end of a swimming pool and swore upon God's name would earn an eternal home in heaven! Does that sound reasonable to anybody? The actions do not earn salvation. God's grace is required for these conditions to have any significance, and without such grace they would be meaningless. Therefore, it should not be argued that these conditions nullify grace, unless it is also believed that these actions earn salvation. Is this an acceptable position?

Grace and conditional works seems to be the only way to reconcile all of these passages without injecting words, or tearing out pages of our Bibles. Of course, that will mean tearing out thousands of pages of human traditions, but I would rather trash the writings of man rather than the writings of God.
email wrote:What specific work does Jesus say must accompany belief in order to be saved? (Mark 16:16): If baptism is needed for salvation how come the Bible does not say that one is not saved because he is not baptised. The only thing the Bible say about a person that is not saved is that they have not believed. Baptism is never mentioned.John 3:16-19
Let's consider this phrase:

"If you inhale air, and your lungs absorb the oxygen into your blood, you will live. If you do not inhale, you will die."

Does this mean that absorption of the oxygen is not necessary? Of course not. If you do not inhale the air, there is no concern about its absorption - you died at step 1!

Similarly, Mark 16:15-16 demonstrates the serial nature of the conversion process. Belief is first required, and then baptism. If one fails at step 1, then who cares about step 2?

Admittedly, it is true that the fate of one who believes, but fails to be baptized, is not explicitly discussed in this verse. (Technically, it is addressed: The coordinating conjunction, "and", links two equivalent items - belief and baptism. The use of "or" would have suggested that baptism could be optional, but "and" necessitates the condtion of both to receive the promise.) To explicitly answer our question about such a person's fate, we could easily look beyond the immediate context. If you are against this, then I would caution you to recall that the object of the "belief" is also not mentioned in this passage, especially to the extent that you mandate later. Clearly, the writer of these verses expected us to exercise some common sense in taking all of God's writings into consideration, not just a single passage.
email wrote:What was Peter's answer to being asked "What shall we do"? (Acts 2:38): Baptism does not save, nor is it essential for salvation. Otherwise, why would Paul say in 1 Cor 1 that he was called to preach the gospel and not to baptize? Paul makes a distinction between the two, implying that one is just a picture of the other. At bottom, if we add to the work of Christ, then we take away from the sufficiency of the cross.
This is a terrible misuse of I Corinthians 1:17, violently ripped out of its context. The wording is elliptical. The "not ... but" phrase expresses a relationship between the two. It is comparative, not absolute. Other clear, non-prejudiced examples of this include:
John by the Holy Spirit wrote: "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." (John 6:27)
Jesus is not advocating that we quit work. Instead, He is placing spiritual food on a level above fleshly food. The phrase can also be used to designate an ultimate order between two things are both of paramount importance:
John by inspiration wrote: "Then Jesus cried out and said, 'He who believes in Me, believes not in Me but in Him who sent Me.'" (John 12:44)
In the above verse, Jesus is not contradicting His previous statement, neither is He abdicating responsibility to believe in Him. Rather, He is showing the ultimate significance of belief in Him. Ultimately, belief in Jesus is primarily belief in the Father, because Jesus acted as the Father's messenger and servant (John 12:49-50; 14:10; Hebrews 5:7-8).

Similarly, Paul is not eliminating the command for baptism, any more than Jesus eliminated the commands to work for earthly food or to believe in Him. Instead, Paul places his responsibility to personally baptize below his personal responsibility to preach. This indeed proves that baptism is not the heart of the gospel - watch the words carefully - nor is it the ultimate aim of the gospel, in and of itself. It is absolutely a part of the preaching of Jesus (Acts 8:12, 35-36) - not the sum, but a part nonetheless.
email wrote:Below is the discussion of Acts 2:38 in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Exegetical Syntax:
1. Causal Ei" in Acts 2:38? An interesting discussion over the force of ei" took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Pevtro" deV pro" aujtouV" metanohvsate, fhsivn, kaiV baptisqhvtw e{kasto" uJmw'n ejpiV tw'/ ojnovmati jIhsou' Cristou' ei" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n ( And Peter said to them, Repent, and be baptized each one of you at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins ).
On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that ei" could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eij was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.
On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey s nonbiblical examples of a causal eij" so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation): It is quite possible that eiv" is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eij" cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non- linguistic. Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eij" fell short of proof.
If a causal eij" is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38. 1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).
2) The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of baptism in Acts especially in this text (cf. 2:41).
3) The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins If this is the correct understanding, then eij" is subordinate to metanohvsate alone, rather than to baptisqhvtw. The idea then would be, Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized. Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.
4) Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.
In sum, although Mantey s instincts were surely correct that in Luke s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eiv" lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking Why? has no more basis than the notion that eij" ever meant mere representation (see prior discussion).

Using the verse to answer, why did Peter command them to be baptized? (Acts 2:38): They were baptised after they repented and recieved the Holy Spirit. Baptism here was done as a testimony of their faith in Christ.
Again, after much labor, words are inserted into the context. I am happy to see the admission that "causal eis" cannot be honestly supported; however, I am disappointed to see the clear interpretation (#1) rejected in favor of one that requires injecttion of words and thoughts, just because the former decries an accepted theology. Is this exegesis or eisegesis? (tongue-in-cheek)

The proposed "fourth" interpretation is at variance with the remainder of the text: Peter admonished the people to "be saved", or "save yourselves". I can be baptized in water, but I cannot force the Spirit to baptize me. Peter's command to the audience fits action that we take up, like baptism and repentance, not action that is taken upon us by the Spirit. The command is addressed to the crowd, not the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it relates to their action, water baptism, not the Holy Spirit's action.

Moreover, Acts 2:38 clearly states that the "gift of the Holy Spirit" follows "repent and be baptized". The rewording of interpretation #3 cannot put the gift of the Holy Spirit in front of their water baptism. Neither can position #4 make water baptism of 2:38a happen after reception of the gift of the Holy Spirit in 2:38b, or simultaneously with it. The clear ordering of the text indicates that the gift follows the action. Only injection of words can change this.
email wrote:What two things happen at the time of baptism? (Galatians 3:26-27; Acts 2:41,47):
Here are the passages referenced:
Paul by inspiration wrote:"For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ." (Galatians 3:26-27)
The above passage clearly shows the link between faith, baptism, and entrance into the body of Christ. Verse 27 explains ("for" - gar) verse 26. Baptism by its very nature is an expression of faith. Who else in their right mind would associate a command to be immersed in water with eternal salvation?
Luke by the Holy Spirit wrote:"And with many other words he testified and exhorted them, saying, 'Be saved from this perverse generation.' Then those who gladly received his word were baptized; and that day about three thousand souls were added to them. ... And the Lord added to the church daily those who were being saved." (Acts 2:40-41, 47)
Did these people have to do anything to be saved? Peter puts the responsibility on their shoulders. Clearly, God has done His part offering His Son as a sacrifice, commissioning the Holy Spirit, inspiring His apostles and prophets, along with many more spiritual blessings that make possible what would otherwise be impossible. However, that being done, the responsibility to accept and obey now rests on our shoulders. "Repent and be baptized ... Be saved". Does that sound like something God needs to do, or that we need to do? If it is something that we must do, then would that not constitute some form of action? A work?
email wrote:Are we commanded by God be baptized to be saved?: NO
Not surprisingly, I would disagree strongly with your conclusion, which I fear is based in theology and tradition as opposed to Scripture.

Instead of dealing with every single sub-argument of the preceding dissertation, the following points are provided, which address the pillar of its flawed foundation:

1) Weakness in being a less-than-five-point Calvinist - Although Calvin's theology ultimately fails the test of Scripture (http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/calvinism.html), it is at least consistent within itself. In other words, if you grant one tenet of Calvinism, the others logically follow. However, if one point is forsaken, then the rest follow it into the abyss. It is a "seamless garment". Consequently, there is inherent weakness in adopting some, but not all of Calvin's tenets, which is demonstrated below.

The following comments from the dissertation accord with Calvin's tenet of "Unconditional Election" (http://www.insearchoftruth.org/articles/election.html):
email wrote:The gospel by nature is a God-centered, grace-centered message which offers salvation as a free gift, a gift without cost, through faith in God s work through His Son rather than by man s work or works whether religious or moral (1 Cor. 1:30; John 4:10; Acts 8:20; Rom. 11:6; 15:15-18; Rev. 21:6). ... The sole condition for eternal life is personal faith in Jesus Christ alone as one s Savior. Christ is enough! This means faith in the person and finished work of Christ as the God-man who died for our sins is the sole basis of one s salvation. None of the faith plus someone s add-ons are conditions for eternal life. It is nonsense to speak of a free gift which costs us something or gives us something to do to get salvation (Rom. 4:1-6; 11:6). ... If I offer my wife a gift and then tell her it will cost her something to get it, it is no longer a gift. Salvation is a gift from God.
An argument that cannot even support its own weight is as sturdy as the "reed of Egypt", destined to destroy those who lean on it. The above argument is made that the gift must be "free". Therefore, baptism would be eliminated, since it is argued to be a meritorious work of righteousness. The difference between conditional works and meritorious works can be explained to the "grace-only" proponent, but it will likely be dismissed, maintaining that the gift must be "absolutely free". Baptism, even though insignificant in self-exertion, is blown out of proportion to be a work detracting from the grace of God. However, we later learn from the "grace-only" position that the gift is not truly free - faith is required! It has been surrendered (see paragraph above) that faith is a "condition for eternal life". Does this not therefore take away from the "freeness" of the gift? Believing is something that we do, requiring spiritual and emotional action on our part. "Believe" is a verb, is it not? "Have faith" is also an action phrase, is it not?. Moreover, Jesus equated faith to being a "work of God" (John 6:28-29)!

Keeping in consistency with used analogy, if the husband gives his wife a ring, but says, "You must believe that I love you", is that not a requirement? Is that not a "cost"? For a wife who is at variance with her husband, convinced that he does not lover her, the requirement of faith in her husband would be the highest cost. Would it not also take similar spiritual energy and work to accept Jesus? If it does not, then why is everybody not saved who hears the gospel? Why so few?

It is double-talk to say that there is no requirement, but then there is one. If there can be one, then there can be two, three, four, or five. This is where Calvin was consistent. He said there was no requirements. In fact, God chosen the elect before the world began - by name, independent of their actions - unconditional. This is the only consistent "grace alone" position. Three-point and four-point Calvinist may find more popularity with the masses in extending the possibility of salvation, but they cannot be consistent with themselves, much less with Scripture, and are therefore in error. To be consistent, like Calvin, they must argue that there was a "Limited Atonement", meaning that Christ did not die for everybody - not everybody can be saved. Unless this is accepted, the arguments offered by the three-point and four-point Calvinist cannot and will not even support its own weight, much less offer a charge against another argument.

Even though this nullifies the conclusion of the dissertation, a few other salient arguments are worth answering:

2) Plowing on God's side of the fence - As humans, we get ourselves into hot water by building arguments on sticky situations, which we think present predicaments to God. However, we do not want to be like the Saducees, who presented their "unanswerable" question to Jesus, and one day hear, "ye do greatly err not knowing the Scriptures or the power of God" (Mark 12:18-27). We must make sure that we never "plow the fields on God's side of the fence", or to use another country expression, "whittle on God's end of the stick". God is the ultimate judge. He will decide how much is enough. The supposedly troublesome question about, "How much commitment is enough?", and such like, are nothing to me, because I cannot answer what God alone can answer, and I will not be held responsible for what alone is God's responsibility (James 4:11-12).

Those who know the Scriptures will realize that the proponents of "belief alone" have the same problem as the supposed "lordship" folks, whoever they are. We could also rightfully, and just as easily ask in turn, "How much belief is enough?" You see, not everyone who believes is saved:
John by the Holy Spirit wrote:"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:42-43)
First, please note that this was taken from the gospel of John, which supposedly teaches that faith alone is sufficient. Second, this passage clearly states that these Jewish rulers believed in Jesus, yet it was not enough! This passages gives some insight into "how much is enough", by pointing out that their love of man's praise exceeded their love for God's praise. In application of this warning to us, do not each of us have moments of weakness? Sometimes we do not believe in God enough to confess Him, whether it be verbally or in some other form of action. Does that condemn us? How much belief is enough? How much belief in Jesus is required to be saved? 10%? 25%? 50%? 100%!?

Clearly, a minimum level of belief is required; otherwise, we must accept that these people were saved, even though they did not believe enough to confess Jesus, loving the praise of men more than the praise of God. That such people will be rejected by Jesus on Judgment Day, forced to face the Father's wrath without the benefit of Christ's mediation, should not be debated, neither is it a fate that can hardly be considered "safe" (Matthew 10:32-33).

The reason that this doctrine has the same problem is because it IS the same problem. Commitment is associated with faith in the Scriptures. Weakness in commitment, and failure to obey, is associated with a weakness in faith (Hebrews 3:12-19). Therefore, any argument that wants to know the level of required commitment is in reality asking the level of required faith. The two are inseparable. Therefore, any argument that undermines the requirement for commitment, simultaneously undermines the requirement for faith.

Therefore, such "whittling on God's end of the stick" is neither wise, nor helpful to the proposition under discussion.

3) Prejudiced injection of words into Scripture - The dissertation mentions "approximately 150 other passages which condition eternal salvation upon faith alone in Christ". Where are these passages? Here are the only passages in the entire Bible that include the words "believe", "belief", "believed", "believing", or "faith" and the word "alone", which remotely relate to salvation:
James by inspiration wrote:"Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone ... Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only." (James 2:17, 24)
Not only do these 2 verses number much less than 150, but these 2 verses contradict the very point being asserted! Such assertions are tossed about lightly throughout the dissertation; however, Scripture does not even begin to support them. Let's look at the passage mentioned in the context of the above quote as an example of these misguided assertions:
Paul by the Holy Spirit wrote:"What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the flesh, hath found? For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness." (Romans 4:1-5)
First, please notice that the definition of "works" in this context are those that earn the reward, "reckoned ... of debt". God owes such workers their reward. They have paid for their reward with their works. No mercy is required. Therefore, this has nothing to do with conditional works, which require grace and mercy. Conditional works, such as baptism, can never earn salvation, or place God in the baptized person's debt, because it requires mercy, the sacrifice of Jesus upon the cross, to have any value at all (Romans 6:1-6). Since the context of Romans 4:1-5 is clearly discussing works that merit God's debt, this passage is of no value in refuting conditional works, which are contingent upon God's mercy. The other 149 passages cannot be addressed, because they were not provided, but since this one was chosen as the epitome of their number, their relevance is likewise suspect.

Second, the incident for the original issuance of this statement concerning Abraham, was issued after after Abraham left his homeland at God's command. Concerning which, the Hebrew writer says:
"By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going." (Hebrews 11:8 - also see Genesis 12:1-8)
Abraham's faith was not without "works of faith". These obedient works of faith preceded the "accounting" of his faith for righteousness (Genesis 15:6). Moreover, it was only after his obedience to the point of sacrificing his promised son that God ultimately said:
Moses by the Spirit wrote:"And He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'" (Genesis 22:12)
His faith was confirmed only after the performing of conditional works, which is the very point of James (James 2:20-26). Without these works, the statement recorded by Paul would have been left "unfulfilled" (Genesis 15:6; Romans 4:1-5; James 2:22-23).

This leads us to our conclusion:

Before God, we are justified through grace by faith, but our faith is justified by works according to Christ's word (Romans 3:24, 28; I Peter 1:13; James 2:18-26). Without grace and Christ's blood, faith would be useless. Also, Baptism would be useless. Man could do nothing for his sin (Romans 6:23). However, God has chosen to substitute faith for meritorious works of righteousness. This is His right and prerogative as judge (Romans 9:14-16). Additionally, our faith is subject to His judgment to determine if it is living, or dead (I Peter 1:13; James 2:18-26). This is how He determines if we have enough faith! He may choose to extend mercy beyond what He has promised. Again, this is His right as lawgiver and judge (James 2:11-12; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 23:39-43; John 8:1-11); however, we have no right, being neither lawgiver nor judge, to proscribe a pattern for conversion and salvation that is outside of His dictates! We cannot streamline, simplify, or in any other way improve upon God's pattern. To take the preceding examples, or passages that reveal faith to be the underlying foundation for justification on our part, and use them to dismiss God's other commandments is foolish, dangerous, and condemned (Galatians 1:6-8). We cannot alter God's commandment for salvation, no matter how smart and perceptive we become. No matter how badly God's requirements trash our tidy system of theology, we cannot deviate from God's revealed direction. To presume to do otherwise is to jeopardize our own souls and that of those who heed us (Matthew 15:12-14; Galatians 1:6-8).
Paul by inspiration wrote:"Or do you not know that as many of us as were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? Therefore we were buried with Him through baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been united together in the likeness of His death, certainly we also shall be in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin. Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with Him, knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, dies no more. Death no longer has dominion over Him. For the death that He died, He died to sin once for all; but the life that He lives, He lives to God. Likewise you also, reckon yourselves to be dead indeed to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus our Lord. Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body, that you should obey it in its lusts. And do not present your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin, but present yourselves to God as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God. For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace. What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? Certainly not! Do you not know that to whom you present yourselves slaves to obey, you are that one's slaves whom you obey, whether of sin leading to death, or of obedience leading to righteousness? But God be thanked that though you were slaves of sin, yet you obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine to which you were delivered. And having been set free from sin, you became slaves of righteousness." (Romans 6:3-18)
When do we come in contact with the saving power of the cross? When is the old man destroyed? When does the new life begin? When do we leave the bondage of sin? When do we become slaves of righteousness? As kindly as I can, I encourage you to answer not from your seminary training, creed books, traditions, and writings of men - answer from the Scripture, for it alone can save.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:08 pm

Dear Sir,
In response to your e-mail I answer, Matt 28:19-20:
The command here is "make disciples". The term "disciples" refers to one who has believed on Jesus Christ and expressed this faith by being baptized. Baptism does not make one a disciple, only faith in Christ does. The syntax of the Greek participles for "baptizing" and "teaching" forbid the conclusion that baptizing and teaching are to be construed solely as the means of making disciples. Neither participle is bound to the other or to the main verb with conjunction kai or a participle; and therefore they must be viewed as dependent on one another or depending in difference ways on the chief verb. Most likely some imperative force is present, since the disciples are certainly to baptize and teach; but computer studies of the Greek NT have shown that although a participle dependent on an imperative normally gains imperative force when it precedes the imperative, its chief force is not normally imperatival when it follows the imperative. Luke 6:35 has a close syntactic parallel; "And lend to them without expecting to get anything back." Not expecting anything in return is certainly not the means of lending, but it is modal in that it characterizes the lending; and at the same time at least some imperatival force tinges the participle, even it the participle is primarily modal.
Similarly baptizing and teaching are not the means of making disciples, but they characterize it. Envisaged is that proclamation of the gospel that will result in repentance and faith, for matheteuo ("I disciple") entails both preaching and response. The response of discipleship is baptism and instruction. Therefore baptism and teaching are not coordinate - either grammatically or conceptually - with the action of making disciples. The masculine pronoun autous ("them," v. 19-20) hint at the same thing, since ethne ("nations") is neuter: the "them" who are baptized and taught are those who have been made disciples. It would misconstrue the text to absolutize the division between discipleship and baptism - instruction. The NT can scarcely conceive of a disciple who is not baptized or is not instructed. Indeed, the force of this command is to make Jesus' disciples responsible for making disciples of others, a task characterized by baptism and instruction.

Baptism does not save, nor is it essential for salvation. Otherwise, why would Paul say in 1 Cor 1 that he was called to preach the gospel and not to baptize? Paul makes a distinction between the two, implying that one is just a picture of the other. At bottom, if we add to the work of Christ, then we take away from the sufficiency of the cross.

Below is the discussion of Acts 2:38 in Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Exegetical Syntax:
  1. Causal Ei" in Acts 2:38? An interesting discussion over the force of ei" took place several years ago, especially in relation to Acts 2:38. The text reads as follows: Pevtro" deV pro" aujtouV" metanohvsate, fhsivn, kaiV baptisqhvtw e{kasto" uJmw'n ejpiV tw'/ ojnovmati jIhsou' Cristou' ei" a[fesin tw'n aJmartiw'n uJmw'n … (“And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized—each one of you—at the name of Jesus Christ because of/for/unto the forgiveness of your sins…”).

    On the one hand, J. R. Mantey argued that ei" could be used causally in various passages in the NT, among them Matt 3:11 and Acts 2:38. It seems that Mantey believed that a salvation by grace would be violated if a causal eij” was not evident in such passages as Acts 2:38.

    On the other hand, Ralph Marcus questioned Mantey’s nonbiblical examples of a causal eij" so that in his second of two rejoinders he concluded (after a blow-by-blow refutation): It is quite possible that eiv" is used causally in these NT passages but the examples of causal eij" cited from non-biblical Greek contribute absolutely nothing to making this possibility a probability. If, therefore, Professor Mantey is right in his interpretation of various NT passages on baptism and repentance and the remission of sins, he is right for reasons that are non- linguistic. Marcus ably demonstrated that the linguistic evidence for a causal eij" fell short of proof.

    If a causal eij" is not in view, what are we to make of Acts 2:38? There are at least four other interpretations of Acts 2:38. 1) The baptism referred to here is physical only, and eij" has the meaning of for or unto. Such a view, if this is all there is to it, suggests that salvation is based on works. The basic problem of this view is that it runs squarely in the face of the theology of Acts, namely: (a) repentance precedes baptism (cf. Acts 3:19; 26:20), and (b) salvation is entirely a gift of God, not procured via water baptism (Acts 10:43 [cf. v 47]; 13:38-39, 48; 15:11; 16:30-31; 20:21; 26:18).
  2. The baptism referred to here is spiritual only. Although such a view fits well with the theology of Acts, it does not fit well with the obvious meaning of “baptism” in Acts—especially in this text (cf. 2:41).
  3. The text should be repunctuated in light of the shift from second person plural to third person singular back to second person plural again. If so, it would read as follows: “Repent, and let each one of you be baptized at the name of Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of your sins…” If this is the correct understanding, then eij" is subordinate to metanohvsate alone, rather than to baptisqhvtw. The idea then would be, “Repent for/with reference to your sins, and let each one of you be baptized.…” Such a view is an acceptable way of handling eij", but its subtlety and awkwardness are against it.
  4. Finally, it is possible that to a first-century Jewish audience (as well as to Peter), the idea of baptism might incorporate both the spiritual reality and the physical symbol. In other words, when one spoke of baptism, he usually meant both ideas—the reality and the ritual. Peter is shown to make the strong connection between these two in chapters 10 and 11. In 11:15-16 he recounts the conversion of Cornelius and friends, pointing out that at the point of their conversion they were baptized by the Holy Spirit. After he had seen this, he declared, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit…” (10:47). The point seems to be that if they have had the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit via spiritual baptism, there ought to be a public testimony/acknowledgment via water baptism as well. This may not only explain Acts 2:38 (viz., that Peter spoke of both reality and picture, though only the reality removes sins), but also why the NT speaks of only baptized believers (as far as we can tell): Water baptism is not a cause of salvation, but a picture; and as such it serves both as a public acknowledgment (by those present) and a public confession (by the convert) that one has been Spirit-baptized.

    In sum, although Mantey’s instincts were surely correct that in Luke’s theology baptism was not the cause of salvation, his ingenious solution of a causal eiv" lacks conviction. There are other ways for us to satisfy the tension, but adjusting the grammar to answer a backward-looking “Why?” has no more basis than the notion that eij" ever meant mere representation.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:13 pm

Dear Sir,

If "Grace and conditional works seems to be the only way to reconcile all of these passages without injecting words, or tearing out pages of our Bibles." Then grace is no longer grace but conditioned upon conditional works. You can't have grace and works in the same message. Notice
ROM 4:1-5
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? "ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS." 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,
Rom 4:16
For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham,
We are saved by faith only just as Abraham was saved by faith only.

Now for James. Please remember that no where in James does it tell us to work for your faith or add conditional works to your faith. It is just talking about those who say they have faith first but do not have good works to back up their faith. No where in James does it say work for your faith.

You mentioned "Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to everlasting life, which the Son of Man will give you, because God the Father has set His seal on Him." (John 6:27)
Please don't stop here but look at the rest of the passage.
John 6:26-29

Jesus answered them and said, "Truly, truly, I say to you, you seek Me, not because you saw signs, but because you ate of the loaves and were filled. 27 "Do not work for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of Man will give to you, for on Him the Father, God, has set His seal." 28 Therefore they said to Him, "What shall we do, so that we may work the works of God?" 29 Jesus answered and said to them, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He has sent."
There are no conditional works added to this passage or to Jesus' answer. He had the chance here to add baptism to His statement but He didn't.

Mark 16
Concerning the contents of this verse. The omission of baptized with "disbelief" would seem to show that Jesus does not make baptism essential to salvation. Condemnation rests on disbelief, and not baptism. So salvation rests on belief. Baptism is merely the picture of the new life, not the means of securing it. So serious a sacramental doctrine would need stronger support anyhow than this disputed portion of Mark.

There are a number of clear and compelling reasons why we can be sure that Mark 16:16 isn’t teaching that water baptism is a condition of eternal salvation:
  • The basis of condemnation is unbelief only.
  • The apostles did not preach that you must be baptized to go to heaven.
  • The Gospel never changes.
  • There are NT examples of people who were saved before they were baptized.
Let’s briefly consider each of those points in more detail.

Condemnation Is for Unbelief Only

Jesus didn’t say, “He who is not baptized will be condemned.” Neither did He say, “He who does not believe and is not baptized will be condemned.” By this our Lord made it clear that faith alone was necessary to avoid eternal condemnation. He said the same thing in John 3:18: “He who believes in Him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God” (see also John 5:24; 6:47).

The Apostles Preached Salvation by Faith Alone

Two of the disciples in the inner circle were Peter and John. Both of them heard Jesus say the words recorded in Mark 16. Yet both of them taught that the only condition of eternal salvation was trusting in Christ and Him alone.

Peter proclaimed the Gospel to Cornelius and his family. He led them to faith in Christ before he even mentioned baptism (cf. Acts 10-34-44). Only after they were saved and baptized by the Holy Spirit did Peter mention Christian baptism and give them the opportunity to be baptized (Acts 10:45-48).

The apostle John wrote an evangelistic book that we call the Gospel of John. He repeatedly indicated that faith is the condition of eternal salvation. Yet not once in all of John’s Gospel, written after the event recorded in Mark 16:16 occurred, did John condition eternal salvation upon water baptism. (In fact, Christian water baptism is not even mentioned in John’s Gospel. )

The Gospel Never Changes

“What about the thief on the cross?” . “Jesus said he would be with Him that day in Paradise, yet he was never baptized.”

Paul clearly indicates that we are saved in this age the same way Abraham and David were saved in their age (cf. Rom. 4:1-8; Gal. 3:6-14). The Gospel has always been, and always will be, by grace through faith plus nothing. We find this in the first book in the Bible (Gen. 3:15; 15:6) and in the last book in the Bible (Rev. 22:17).

The NT Gives Examples of Salvation Before Baptism

In addition to the thief on the cross, there are other NT examples of people who were saved without being baptized. Martha (John 11:25-27) is one. Another is Cornelius and his household. According to Acts 10:43-48, they were saved the moment they heard Peter tell them that all who believe in the Lord Jesus receive remission of sins. At that very moment, before they were baptized with water, they were baptized by the Holy Spirit into the body of Christ.

These four points prove that Mark 16:16 is not teaching that you must be water baptized to go to heaven. However, the question still remains as to what Mark 16:16 does mean.

Mark 16:16 Is Teaching That All Who Respond to the Great Commission Will Go to Heaven

The key to understanding these verses is to recognize that they are a summary statement of the Great Commission. Mark is not reporting everything that Jesus said about the Great Commission. He is recording one summary statement that Jesus made of it.

The Great Commission was communicated by the Lord on five different occasions (once each in the Gospels and Acts). There is a lot of variety in the way the Great Commission is expressed in these five instances. In some of those statements only evangelism is mentioned (e. g. , Luke 24:47, though it could possibly be dealing with both evangelism and discipleship, and Acts 1:8). In some only discipleship is mentioned (Matt. 28:18-20; John 21:15-17). the Great Commission in Mark 16:15-16 includes both evangelism and discipleship. Preaching the Gospel to every creature (v. 15) is evangelism. Baptizing those who believe (v. 16) is the first step in discipleship.

What Jesus is saying in Mark 16:15-16 is this:
  • Preach the Gospel to everyone on earth (v. 15).
  • Tell people to believe in Him and to be baptized (implied in v. 16).
  • Those who believe and are baptized will be saved.
  • Those who don’t believe will be condemned.
It is, of course, true that all who believe and are baptized will be eternally saved. That is not to say, however, that those who either refuse to be baptized or who fail to be baptized through procrastination, ignorance, or lack of opportunity (for example, some people have died immediately after trusting in Christ) will not be saved. They will. At the very moment they believe, they are saved from the penalty of sin, eternal condemnation.

We must be careful not to read into Scripture. Jesus does not say or even imply that the one who isn’t baptized won’t be saved. We know that is not true from other Scripture, and even from the second half of v. 16.

Mark 16:16 does not contradict salvation by faith alone. Rather, it affirms it. Jesus clearly and unmistakably indicates that the sole basis of eternal condemnation is unbelief. The sole basis for eternal salvation is believing the Lord Jesus, and Him alone, for it.

Another understanding of Mark 16:16 is that it refers to Holy Spirit baptism (see, for example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Systematic Theology, Vol. 6, p. 150). Except for some exceptional cases in the Book of Acts, Holy Spirit baptism has always occurred at the point of faith. Compare 1 Cor. 12:13. While that view is possible, I don’t believe it fits the context as well as the one I have articulated here.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Mon Jun 27, 2005 9:16 pm

I am concerned that you repeated several of your arguments without even addressing my responses to your questions (for example, please see my original response to I Corinthians 1, included below). Moreover, I am concerned that you did not even address my principle question (see question/point #1 below your dissertation). Consequently, rather than repeating my answers again, I would like to insist that we first address these two questions from my original response:

Is faith a condition for salvation? If so, is faith something we do, or is it something God does for us?

I look forward to hearing your response.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:50 pm

Dear Sir,
You asked me this,
m273p15c wrote:"Is faith a condition for salvation? If so, is faith something we do, or is it something God does for us?"
Faith is all that requires for salvation Once a person has placed their faith in the finished work of Christ then he must be careful to maintain good works. The believing one will never lose their salvation but he may lose his rewards.

Verses that express faith as the only requirement for salvation (by the way faith, belief, and trust are synonymous trems) John 3:16-19, 5:24, 6:29, 6:47: Acts 10:43, 13:38,39, 48, 16:31; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5.

Good works should accompany salvation Matt. 7:16: Eph. 2:10; Titus 2:4' 3:8; Romans 7:4.

Will never lose salvation John 6:47; Romans 8:31-39; John 10:25-30; Eph.1:13, 4:30; Phil. 1:6; 2 Cor. 1:22.

Faith is all that is needed for our salvation and nothing more. Baptism, and good works never will and have never saved any one in this dispensation of grace.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Wed Jun 29, 2005 9:52 pm

These answers are in profound contradiction with the primary concern against baptism. If the proposed argument cannot maintain consistency with itself, how can it possibly accord with the perfect harmony of Scripture (Titus 1:2 - "God ... who cannot lie")?

The proposed doctrine mandates that baptism cannot be a requirement, because baptism detracts from the "freeness" of the gift of grace. Any requirement for us to do something, no matter how small, nullifies grace, or so it is argued:
email wrote: The gospel by nature is a God-centered, grace-centered message which offers salvation as a free gift, a gift without cost, ... It is nonsense to speak of a free gift which costs us something or gives us something to do to get salvation ... If I offer my wife a gift and then tell her it will cost her something to get it, it is no longer a gift. Salvation is a gift from God.
If this argument invalidates the requirement for baptism, then it must, by the same logic, invalidate the requirement for us to believe!

How can consistency be maintained in saying that there are no requirements, AND that there is one requirement (John 6:28-29)!? Either there are some, or there are none. If there can be one, there can be more. If not, why not? If the requirement for faith does not invalidate grace, then why would the requirement for baptism invalidate grace?

Your earnestness is greatly appreciated and respected.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Thu Jun 30, 2005 6:44 pm

I am afraid that you are mistaken. Faith is not conditional but unconditional. Like the Abrahamic covenant, all Abraham had to do was believe and it was counted to him by God for righteousness. This Righteousness that was accounted to Abraham was done apart from works. We believe the salvation plan of God in the same way Galatians 3:6-9.

There is one thing that man can do to be saved and that is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved". Works of faith which, includes baptism, no more saves than can works of righteousness save a man. Salvation is a free gift of to man. When man by faith reaches out a accepts the free gift offered by God he is saved. Nothing then can ever separate him from the love of God. His future is sealed by Holy Spirt and the man is guaranteed heaven. This is what the Bible clearly teaches. Now according to Romans if the grace of God requires something from man in the form of a work such as baptism then grace is no longer grace but a debt. Baptism is a picture of what Christ has done for us on the cross, Romans 6:1-4. It is not apart of the salvation process.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Thu Jun 30, 2005 10:24 pm

Conditions for faith was never under question, although incidentally, faith is clearly predicated on at least one condition (Romans 10:17). The previous post, and its line of reason, has nothing to do with conditions for faith; however, it has everything to do with the conditions for salvation.

Since the previous reply did not address the logic of the preceding question, please allow me to restate for emphasis and clarification:

The proposed doctrine states that there must not be any conditions placed upon the obtaining of salvation; otherwise, grace is nullified. Is this not one of the primary objections to baptism - that it nullifies grace? Therefore, to maintain consistency, faith also must not be a requirement for salvation, else it also nullifies the free grace of God. If it is mandated that salvation by grace alone have absolutely no cost, then can not cost even faith! Consistent application of your argument eliminates the requirement for grace!

Since your argument cannot be consistent with itself, it cannot be consistent with Scripture! Dear friend, how can you cling to a doctrine that is so clearly inconsistent with itself?

I would answer your other assertions, and make points of my own, but until we resolve this one fundamental disagreement concerning the nature of grace, there is no benefit in going forward - only confusion and hardness of heart await such folly.

I will be glad to answer your questions and arguments, although many of them have already been answered, once we have to come agreement on a sound foundation for further study and reasoning.

(As a side note, I only press you, because I care about every soul. The consequences of our disagreement are disastrous for at least one of us - maybe both! It would be cruelty to both of our souls to walk away from this confrontation, only to find that we must face the ultimate humiliation on the last day. I would rather humble myself before all men now, than to be brought to the lowest depths before God's throne. Only out of love do I press for the truth. If I am wrong, then please show me. I will gladly change. I would like to think that you would do the same, if you realized your doctrine was flawed - "love hopes all things, believes all things...".)

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:28 pm

Some of this my own and some comes from other sources but all is pertinent to the issue.

The main of Romans 10:14-17 is that a clear presentation of the gospel message must precede true saving faith. True faith always has content and that is found in the Bible. Salvation come only to those who hear and believe the facts of the gospel. You mentioned that there are conditions for salvation. Yes there is A condition, not conditions, for salvation. The only condition for salvation is faith in the gospel message. The gospel message is one of grace and we cannot add any requirements to grace other than faith. The only thing we can do without doing anything is believe or have faith in the gospel message. (Romans 11:6)

"But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace"

You tried to show that my reasoning will refute grace.
m273p15c wrote:Therefore, to maintain consistency grace also must not be a requirement for salvation.
Grace is not something we do but is a characteristic of God. Grace is entirely the work of God, unprompted by man, undeserved by man, and without regard to anything that the object of grace will later accomplish.

J. I. Packer describes grace this way:

What is grace? In the New Testament grace means God’s love in action towards men who merited the opposite of love. Grace means God moving heaven and earth to save sinners who could not lift a finger to save themselves. Grace means God sending His only Son to descend into hell on the cross so that we guilty ones might be reconciled to God and received into heaven. ‘(God) hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him’ (2 Corinthians 5:21).

To make even the slightest contribution to our salvation is to rule out the possibility of grace. For one thing, any contribution on our part would be exaggerated in our own minds. Worse yet, our efforts to contribute to God’s saving grace are an affront to Him.

Since we have no claim on God’s grace and cannot contribute anything to it, then grace must be sovereignly bestowed. As God said to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion” (Exodus 33:19; cf. Romans 9:15). The necessary conclusion is that which follows in Romans 9:16:

So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs but on God who has mercy.

“Believe” represents all that a sinner must have to be saved. It is believing the record that God has given to us about His Son. God could have chosen any word in any language he wished to express what a person must do to be saved but He believe. To this one requirement no other obligation may be added without violence to the Scriptures and total disruption of the essential doctrine of salvation by grace alone.

To make baptism a requirement for salvation is to add works to the gospel message.

Water baptism is a ritual act that symbolizes a spiritual truth or reality. It is a public confession which portrays one’s faith in the person and work of Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit which joins the Christian into union with Christ and identifies him or her with Christ’s death, burial and resurrection unto new life. Baptism in water, a ritual, portrays that which is real, the baptism by the Spirit (1 Cor. 12:12-13).

Romans 4:1-12: Verses 1-6 clearly show how a man is justified by faith apart from human works. Then, in verses 7-12 Paul uses Old Testament circumcision to illustrate the fact salvation has always been the same in every age. Men of every age are saved by walking in the steps of Abraham. He shows that Old Testament saints were justified by faith alone before circumcision was ever instituted.

But the truly important principle is that circumcision is to the Old Testament believer what water baptism is to the New Testament believer. The point is, people are saved by faith alone apart from any kind of law, ritual, or ordinance.

1 Corinthians 1:14-16. In this passage the Apostle somewhat de-emphasizes water baptism. The Apostle can hardly be said to have viewed baptism as indispensable to the gospel message. Not only was it his practice not to baptize his own converts, but he shows us here that water baptism as necessary for salvation is not a part of the gospel as is faith. The gospel message is that Jesus Christ, the God-man Savior, died for our sins, was raised from the dead, and we that can receive eternal life as a gift through faith. If baptism was necessary to be saved through the gospel, Paul could hardly have said “For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, … ”

According to Ephesians 2:8-9 baptism is clearly a human work that man does. Here the Bible clearly declares that the basis of salvation is God’s grace through faith alone.

We should immediately be suspicious of an interpretation of Titus 3:5 which understands the “washing” here to refer to any human ritual or work because of the emphasis of verse 5a. No mention is made here of faith perhaps because the emphasis is totally on what God has done rather than on any kind of religious or ritual work that man could possibly do-- including water baptism. Unfortunately, some see the words “washing of regeneration” as a reference to water baptismal even though this context is prefaced by, “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done … ” Can this refer to water baptism? Not on your life! Why?
The immediate context is emphasizing that salvation is a work of God and not man.

Water baptism, no matter how you slice it, is a religious work. If water baptism is the basis of our regeneration, then it is a work of our righteousness or a righteous act produced by us.

The passage is telling us that regeneration results in a spiritual cleansing, the forgiveness of sin and this is part of the rebirth work of the Holy Spirit. We can translate the last part of verse 5 as “by the washing produced by regeneration, even the rebirth produce by the Holy Spirit.”

Acts 2:38 can be shown that baptism is necessary for salvation and it can be understood that is does not support baptism as a requirement for salvation. It depends on how you intemperate the passage. With this in mind, this verse being controversial should not be use to support the idea that the gospel includes baptism. It is not clear here that it does.

James 2:14-26 is one of the key passages used to support the need of adding works to faith in Christ. The thinking is something like this: We are saved by faith alone, but real faith is never alone, or the faith that saves is never alone,” and James 2:14-26 is used to support this position. Does James 2:14-26 support this position?

There is no question that this is a difficult passage, but much of its difficulty stems from our own preconditioned thinking, theological bias, the nature of English translations, and our understanding of certain words like “save,” “salvation,” “soul,” and translations like “that faith” in vs. 14.

There is no question that faith without works is in some way defective, but that does not mean that the person is unsaved or that their faith in Christ is not real. Scripture teaches that faith begins as a grain of mustard seed and must grow. If it is not fed and nourished by the Word and fellowship with the Lord, it becomes stagnant, the soul becomes hard, and the life becomes unfruitful.

James was written to believers, to those whom James considered as saved. He was not questioning their salvation. This is apparent from the following:
  • He identifies them as brethren in every chapter for a total of 15 times in this epistle (1:2, 16, 19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1, etc.).
  • He refers to his readers as “begotten of God” (1:18), a reference to regeneration or the new birth as a gift from God (1:17).
    As a warning against partiality he refers to their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (2:1).
  • He also speaks about “the fair name by which you have been called,” a reference to the name Christian because of their faith in Christ and association with the Christian community (Acts 11:26; 1 Pet. 4:16).
  • He teaches and challenges them in ways that could only have application or meaning to genuine believers: (a) In 1:2-4 of the goal of trials to mature one’s faith and character; (b) In 1:5-8 and 4:2-3 he speaks of their privilege of prayer and of the need to pray in faith with right motives to receive answers for wisdom and to meet their needs; (c) In 1:12 of the promise of the crown of life; (d) In 1:20 of achieving or producing righteous character which has its origin in fellowship with God, i.e. God’s righteousness; (e) In 1:21f of receiving the engrafted Word which, like a mirror, is able to expose us and bring about much needed change; (f) And in 4:5 of the jealous concern of the Holy Spirit who indwells all believers to keep us faithful to the Lord, the Groom of the bride (cf. 4:4).


While James knew his readers were born again, he also knew how they desperately needed to take in the Word and respond to its truth. The facts of the epistle show that though they were religious and orthodox in their faith, they were carnal, worldly, and legalistic. Legalism always nullifies the power of Christ in believers’ lives. It means they are trusting in their own ability and good works to be accepted with God and to feel significant.

As is clear in the epistles of Paul, this does not mean they were unsaved or only professing Christians. But it does mean they were unfruitful because they were laboring under the weakness of their own ability.

James is not talking about a real versus a false or spurious faith, one which only claims to be real, but really is not. These were brethren (vs. 14), true believers with real faith in Christ for salvation. But as for their daily walk, their faith was dead, inoperative, and unproductive. Faith, in order to work and be productive, must have a valid object and be energized by fellowship with the Lord; it must grow in the grace and knowledge of Christ (2 Pet. 3:18). Their faith had a valid object for salvation from sin’s penalty, but not for the Christian life and victory against the power of sin. Again, compare Paul’s argument in Galatians and in Colossians. See also Matthew 6:30; Colossians 2:6; Romans 10:17; 2 Corinthians 5:7; 1 Thessalonians 1:3; 2:13.

In James 1:21, James speaks about the Word’s ability “to save your souls.” Compare also 2:14 and 5:20. We need to be careful that we do not misunderstand this. The modern English translation has for many only one religious meaning-- “to be saved from hell.” But this is not what James meant nor what his readers would have understood. By context, this meant “to save your life” from God’s divine discipline and the self-made misery of walking out of fellowship. Five times James uses the word sozo, “to save,” which means:

to save or deliver from peril, injury, suffering, or physical death (Matt. 8:25; 14:30; 27:40, 42; Mk. 13:20; Jam. 4:12; 5:20).
to heal, restore to health or strength (Matt. 9:22; Mk. 5:24; Jam. 5:15).
to save or deliver in a spiritual sense from the penalty, power, and presence of sin (1 Cor. 1:21; Jam. 1:21; 2:14; 1 Tim. 1:15). Used of the past, present, and future aspects of salvation. Some passages could refer to all aspects of salvation, past, present, and future.

We simply cannot limit this word to mean salvation from hell. James is clearly saying their faith, in the condition it was in, could not save or deliver anyone from the things that were dominating their lives. But he is not talking about salvation from hell. Why should he? This does not fit the context as demonstrated above. He did need to warn them, however, about the bondage and futility of legalism and dead orthodoxy, and about the consequences of sin-- the loss of rewards and divine discipline even to the point of death (1:15, 21; 4:12; 5:1-4, 7-8, 9, 14-16, 20).

James … understood how easily Christians, who knew the great truth that God accepted us on the basis of faith alone, could fall into the error of downplaying good works altogether. He understood how readily doctrinal correctness could take precedence over practical, everyday obedience. In short, he knew the danger of dead orthodoxy.
The verses that you have used to support the idea that there are conditions for salvation can be interpreted differently. If a doctrine is to be supported with scripture the scripture used must clearly support ones position. There is no scripture that gives reference to conditions for salvation other that faith. Faith is the only thing we can do without doing anything.
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:32 pm

I appreciate your zeal for your cause, but you seem to be blind to the profound inconsistencies of the proposed arguments.

How is that faith can be a requirement for salvation, a necessary work per the very words of Jesus (John 6:28-29), and yet you still maintain that there are no requirements for salvation?
email wrote: “Believe” represents all that a sinner must have to be saved. It is believing the record that God has given to us about His Son. God could have chosen any word in any language he wished to express what a person must do to be saved but He believe. To this one requirement no other obligation may be added without violence to the Scriptures and total disruption of the essential doctrine of salvation by grace alone.
You admit faith is a requirement in one statement, but logically eliminate ANY requirement in the next sentence. If grace is "disrupted" by the "obligation" of any works, even conditional, then faith cannot be a requirement! This is the consistent application of your argument. Clearly this is in error, so the primary argument is false!

If you believe baptism somehow "earns" someone salvation, then you must believe that faith must also "earn" it. The truth is that neither earn salvation. Neither undo grace, because neither can alone save. Both require God's mercy to have any significance or effectiveness. Both are a tremendous affirmation of God's grace by admitting our dependence upon Him (I Peter 3:21).

The inconsistency of your arguments illuminates your error - a forced interpretation placed upon Scriptures taken out of context. A correct interpretation of Scripture cannot contain inconsistencies within itself, because God cannot lie (Titus 1:2). Truth cannot contradict itself, but yet you have done this repeatedly. Compare this statement:
email wrote:To make even the slightest contribution to our salvation is to rule out the possibility of grace. For one thing, any contribution on our part would be exaggerated in our own minds. Worse yet, our efforts to contribute to God’s saving grace are an affront to Him.
with this one:
email wrote:The gospel message is one of grace and we cannot add any requirements to grace other than faith. The only thing we can do without doing anything is believe or have faith in the gospel message. (Romans 11:6)
I wish I could apologize for my harshness, but I do not know what else to do. I could understand further patience, if you had addressed the logic of my questions but vocalized misgivings, or mentioned difficulties in understanding. However, this is the fourth time you have danced around and dodged the import of this fundamental question! Unless you can answer my question with Scriptures explaining your inconsistency, then there is no use continuing this discussion.

Whenever you care to deal with the inconsistency of your arguments, then I will gladly take up the examination of the remainder of your arguments, one at a time. However, if you will not truly deal with my first response, then why should offer any more?
Last edited by m273p15c on Mon Jan 08, 2007 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

will
Posts: 357
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:47 pm

Study #8 - baptism, works, and grace?

Post by will » Sat Jul 16, 2005 6:16 pm

I do find this statement " To this one requirement no other obligation may be added without violence to the Scriptures and total disruption of the essential doctrine of salvation by grace alone" deserving of some response along the lines of this:

First, there is NO violence done to scripture where one reminds another in love of 'all' or the 'whole' (Acts 20: 20,27) of what God has said on a subject. One , in fact, does violence to God's word when one emphasizes one aspect of a subject and ignores the remainder of what God has said on that subject. Such maneuvering in argumentation is dishonest.
Secondly, I would ABSOLUTELY agree that to add even one requirement to the doctrine of 'faith only' for our salvation ( as God has clearly done!) does indeed make for a 'total dsruption of salvation by grace alone' - that is and has been the point! Salvation by grace only is man's plan wherein he ignores God's word. This doctrine, because it is man's doctrine' needs, yea , cries out to be violently disrupted( Matt 15:1-9) , because it is false, and the scriptures is God's tool to do that( Eph 6:10 17; Heb 4: 12)! The correspondent is assuming the point to be proven, i.e., that salvation by 'faith only' agrees w/ all of what God has spoken in the Scriptures on the N.T subject of salvation.
Thirdly, the writer's definition of ' belief ' as in ' believe only' is man's definition and not God's. God told Abraham, who btw, 'believed' , "now I know that thou fearest God" ( Gen 22:12) only after his belief was exemplified. I would go so far as to say that the ' belief only ' doctrine is in fact a doctrine of profoundest unbelief, because if Abraham had so acted, God would never have approved him.

User avatar
email
Non-Member
Posts: 2994
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 1:23 pm
Location: ether
Contact:

Post by email » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:27 am

My point in saying, that faith is the only thing we can do to be saved, is just what Jesus said in John 6:27-29. Pay close attention to verse 29. Without faith in the finished work of Jesus on the Cross no one can be saved. If salvation has a condition it is faith only and nothing else. Also, please look at what Jesus said in John 6:47. Baptism is not mentioned in any of these verses either as a condition for salvation. The only thing God wants us to do to be saved is to believe, have faith, or trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross. To this one and ony requirement no other condition is to be added without changing the message of grace.

If there are conditions for savation outside of faith only what are they?
The above presented views do not necessarily represent any specific individual, registered on this forum or otherwise.
Who is "email"?

User avatar
m273p15c
Posts: 2788
Joined: Tue Sep 28, 1999 10:45 am

Post by m273p15c » Mon Aug 01, 2005 12:47 am

I apologize for the delay in responding. Worthwhile pursuits have kept me busy, but frankly, I often hesitated not knowing whether to respond. Framing a response was not the concern; rather, the value in responding was my concern.

To my surprise, you responded - not as I hoped; but at least, you responded. Therefore, I would like to return a response, reminding you of my question that still stands unanswered in content, while trying to address one of your other concerns.
  1. Grace is not abdicated by God placing requirements. If you maintain that faith is a requirement, then you must drop your concern that the requirement of baptism nullifies grace, else you stand in contradiction. Every reference to Scripture, quoting faith as a work or a requirement for salvation only furthers my point that you have misunderstood this point on grace, as demonstrated by Scripture (John 6:27-29)
  2. Baptism works in concert with faith and requires grace; therefore, it cannot be contrary to it, since baptism requires grace and faith to have any significance. Please read the story of Naaman and his cleansing (II Kings 5:1-19). Really, please read it before continuing...
What was the requirement for Naaman to be saved from his leprosy? He had to dip in the Jordan river 7 times! He was furious over this simple requirement, but after some persuading from his servants, this military general submitted himself to God. Did he save himself? Or, did grace save him? Does dipping in water earn one healing from the premature, gruesome death that comes to lepers? Was this immersion a fair trade for a man's life? If it was, then God would owe every man a physical healing, who dips in the Jordan river! But, do we see that happening today? Why are people not healed today, who bathe in the Jordan river? Is it not because special mercies were extended to Naaman? Was it not a gracious miracle that saved him?

Just as Naaman was required to be baptized, but yet he was still saved from leprosy by grace, Paul states that baptism is the point at which we come in contact with Christ's gracious saving power of the cross (Romans 6:3-7). Baptism is the point at which "spiritual circumcision" occurs, performed by Christ's spiritual hands on our heart, removing the old man with his sins (Colossians 2:11-12). Until we come to that point, we are still carrying the around the "body of the sins of the flesh". We are neither "buried with him", nor can we remotely be considered as "raised with him". We are still walking in our old ways according to the old man. We have not yet begun to "walk in newness of life". Does that sound like a saved state? If baptism is the point at which all this occurs, would that not imply that baptism is necessary for us to be translated into a saved state?

My friend, it seems to me that you are choking on the idea that baptism nullifies grace, but it does not. Instead, baptism requires grace - just like Naaman's baptism required grace to have any significance. Peter said:
Peter by the Holy Spirit wrote:"There is also an antitype which now saves us -- baptism (not the removal of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" (I Peter 3:21)
In baptism, one's conscience is vindicated, but yet it is a God directed action, relying on His promise and grace. In baptism, the converted one completes God's initial requirements: hear (Romans 10:17), believe (John 3:16), repent (Luke 13:3, 5), confess (Romans 10:8-13), and be baptized (Acts 22:16). These very simple conditions are the only requirements, known to me, for forgiveness of sins, which is salvation. However, one must continue to seek God, so that he may receive continued forgiveness for any sins, newly committed as a Christian (I John 1:5-9; Acts 8:20-24). Although God has placed these requirements on salvation, they do not nullify grace; otherwise, Christ would not have had to die on the cross! We could have all just been baptized instead! However, the blessing of the cross is only promised for those who in faith conform themselves to the image of that great sacrifice (Romans 6:3-7; Colossians 2:11-12).

Again, I think you have grossly exaggerated Paul's discussion in Romans on grace and therefore erroneously applied Romans 4, taking it out of context. The works under discussion in that passage are those that merit, or earn salvation. How does that occur? Please compare the following two references on this great topic:
Paul by inspiration wrote:"Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt." (Romans 4:4)

"For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse; for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them". But that no one is justified by the law in the sight of God is evident, for "the just shall live by faith". Yet the law is not of faith, but "the man who does them shall live by them". Christ has redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us (for it is written, "Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree")" (Galatians 3:10-13)
How did one receive salvation according to words under the Old Law? They had to keep the works of the Old Law without committing a single sin! As soon as they committed one sin, they were under the curse of the law, and no amount of works could undo that. Only by perfect law keeping can one earn salvation, placing God in one's debt (Romans 9:30-32). This parable further illustrates the point:
Luke by the Holy Ghost wrote:And Jesus answered and said to him, "Simon, I have something to say to you." So he said, "Teacher, say it." "There was a certain creditor who had two debtors. One owed five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. And when they had nothing with which to repay, he freely forgave them both. Tell Me, therefore, which of them will love him more?" Simon answered and said, "I suppose the one whom he forgave more." And He said to him, "You have rightly judged." (Luke 7:40-43).
Which one was saved by grace? Both! In application to keeping the Old Law, one may have kept 5% of the law, where the other kept 25%. Did either earn salvation? No! Neither could repay their debt. Grace saved them both. Even if they had obeyed 99% of the law, they still did not earn salvation. Instead, they earned eternal condemnation (Romans 6:23). Only one sin would have committed anyone under the eternal curse of the law, which could have only been forgiven in Christ's cross by which He took an equivalent curse upon Himself. Therefore, baptism could only be considered a "work of righteousness", if it was part of one keeping the entire Old and New Covenants perfectly - yet without sin. Know anybody that can do that (Galatians 3:21-22)? Only then could baptism be considered part of a system of works, thereby invalidating grace.

Baptism is not a "work of righteousness" according to the context of Romans, because it cannot earn salvation. Clearly, Paul did not think that baptism was in conflict with a system of grace, because he set salvation by the "washing of regeneration" in contrast to salvation based on works of righteousness (Titus 3:5 - for similar references, see Acts 22:16; Hebrews 10:22; Ephesians 5:26; John 3:5, 23).

To reiterate, God's requirement of conditional works does not nullify grace, because these conditional works can never earn, nor merit salvation. They are performed in faith of God's gracious promise; therefore, they are not only in harmony with grace, but they depend on it! Salvation by "works" comes only by perfect law keeping, which does not require Christ's sacrifice. However, through faith and baptism, God connects one to the power of this sacrifice when one is conformed to the very image of this sacrifice (Romans 6; Colossians 2:11-12). Therefore, baptism does not displace the cross, but instead, baptism establishes the need for both the cross and the grace that flowed from it! Furthermore, baptism is an integral part of justification by faith, by which we become members of Christ's saved body (Galatians 3:24-27).

Regarding your previous observation, baptism is truly no where mentioned in John 6:27-29 or verse 47. However, neither can exclusive statements be found in these texts! No where in these passages does Jesus state that belief is the only requirement, which you have read into the text. Moreover, if belief is the only requirement, then how do you explain the following verse, also taken from the gospel of John:
John the apostle wrote:"Nevertheless even among the rulers many believed in Him, but because of the Pharisees they did not confess Him, lest they should be put out of the synagogue; for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:42-43)
Were these people saved too? Clearly, they were not; therefore, we know that John 6:27-29 and verse 47 was not intended to contain the sum of all requirements to be saved, because these fearful people believed, but they were not saved! BTW, the same Greek word is used for "belief" in both verses, pisteou. Therefore, you must look to other passages to help explain this dilemma; during which course, you will surely stumble across passages that qualify faith and introduce baptism. If you blind your eyes to these other passages, then you must live with this contradiction between two inspired texts - John 12:42-43 versus John 6:27-29, 47 - not to mention John 6:27-29, which contradicts your position that no works are required..

My friend, I am your servant pleading with you: If God had asked you to do some great thing, would you not do it? Why will you not do this small thing? Faith is demonstrated when one obeys God, operating on His promise. It is highlighted even more clearly when one obeys God's command without fully understanding His purposes and wisdom, such as in baptism. Nevertheless, God asks you to be baptized (Acts 22:16; Matthew 28:18-20). The only question that remains is, "Why tarriest thou?"

(BTW, if Christ "finished the work on the cross", then why do you have to do anything to be saved - even believe? Calvin coined this language, but he accepted "irresistible grace" and an "unconditional election". It is hard to accept part of his theology, while rejecting other parts. Consistency... consistency... consistency...)

Post Reply